Six protesters demonstrating against Green Mountain Power’s wind energy project on Lowell Mountain were arrested this afternoon for unlawful trespass, following a protest of about 50 people.
The protesters believe the 21 wind turbines will cause needless environmental damage and won’t contribute significantly to combating climate change. They also argue that the regulatory process which cleared the project had flaws.
William Roddy, an Irasburg mason, said that he allowed himself to be arrested because he “wanted to make a statement.”
“It’s frustrating to me,” said Roddy, who added that he feels a “close connection” to Lowell Mountain, partly because he sees it from his home. “There’s no environmental protection in Vermont anymore.”
People protesting GMP's Lowell Mountain wind project on August 6, 2012. Credit: Mountain Occupiers
According to protester Will Young, about 25 activists gathered at the protest site from about 6 a.m. Monday until shortly after the 1 p.m. arrests. Young described the atmosphere as friendly and energetic. Activists played music, danced and engaged site construction workers in casual banter.
“I feel like they [GMP] only went through the public process to a point, and the process is flawed,” said Young, a self-employed logger and farmer from Westfield. “Community members don’t have the resources to have a strong voice. It’s complex, expensive, and lawyers don’t want to do it.”
Young explained that construction cranes were not physically blocked by most protesters, but that some construction may have been delayed due to the protest. He added that the protest took place on disputed land, a current subject of litigation between GMP and Don and Shirley Nelson.
“It is regrettable that a small group has once again resorted to illegal actions,” said GMP spokesman Dorothy Schnure, in a statement earlier this morning. She added that the Kingdom Community Wind project enjoyed broad support, including from Lowell residents, and that protesters on the construction site created safety hazards.
Schnure had no further comment on today’s arrests.
Roddy said a mock funeral procession would likely take place on the mountain tomorrow, with participants dressed in black and bearing flowers. Meanwhile, Vermont State Police and the Lamoille County sheriff met with GMP officials to discuss how to manage future protests.
The six protestors arrested today were:
· Keith Ballek, 56, of Sheffield
· Carol Irons, 71, of Albany
· Meredith Jones, 63, of East Albany
· Dennis Liddy, 64, of Westfield
· William Roddy, 66, of Irasburg
· Raymond Micklon, 50, of Craftsbury
Protesters posted photos and videos from the day to a live website, here.
Correction: The spelling of Keith Ballek’s name was corrected.
Permalink |
Please support conservation…reducing usage of electricity is the key. Please support solar panels and eliminate the ban on small hydro power.
Permalink |
These six people have my admiration and respect. The destruction being done cannot be undone, and I hope the number of protesters continues to grow.
Permalink |
oh yes, the vsp and the lamoille county sheriff are meeting with gmp to plot and scheme about the next protest. won’t sorrell attend? how about shumlin, spaulding, miller and the whole psb? powell and schnure? doesn’t anyone want to meet with the protesters? nah, that makes too much sense. does anyone with a farm tractor (big, really big) want to attend?
Permalink |
Good one Walter!!
Permalink |
I was up on the Lowell mountains last week. It’s all dry. Last year it was wet, rich, deep, lush cool. Now it’s hot. Like an oven. Like a Wal-Mart parking lot the entire length of the mountain. GMP has sucked the life out of the mountain, beginning with the water. Water is life. We forget that at our peril. Why does Gov. Shumlin hate water?
Permalink |
The accusations here are unsupported by reason and plagued by logical flaws. It does not follow that “Governor Shumlin hate[s] water” because he supports wind power. Wind power is actually the least water intensive method of producing electricity. I must politely request that you please keep your misinformation campaign confined to your own website and away from my news outlet. Thank you.
Permalink |
Hi Annette. It is equally possible that it is very dry (as it is across the U.S. this year) due to the adverse impacts of climate change, rather than the construction on the mountain. Climate change is upon us, so while I understand that you are concerned with the development, it is time to put this argument into a much larger, and more honest context.
I’d like to see those who are critical of wind (which is fine – it is important to be critical of development and examine it closely) to research the impacts of the other sources of energy that Vermont gets, and also the other sources of energy common in the U.S. Research them with the same level of focus, and then set up side by side comparisons. Factor in economic constraints, social justice issues, ecological impacts, access to capital, etc. and then come up with solutions that will work in the real world and propose them. These solutions should mitigate climate change/greenhouse emissions, take into account both airborne pollutants as well as the ecological impacts of any mining or drilling, and honestly project an accurate amount of energy produced (and the cost of the energy produced) in comparison to the projected rate of growth of energy consumption (adjusted for population growth, inflation, etc). You should also take into account the current economy, and propose solutions that will not unduly burden those with low or no income any more than necessary.
I’m not criticizing, I’m serious. Debate is important, questioning is important, thinking seriously about the future of energy and our environment are extremely important, but let’s get real about it. Anyone can criticize, but criticism without implementable alternative solutions just wastes time. If you and your supporters have better ideas to bring to the table that are systemic, well-researched, cost-effective, socially and ecologically responsible and implementable, please by all means bring them to the table. We all are struggling with these questions, advocates and opponents alike, but unless we are actively mitigating climate change, right now, than it’s just a lot of hot air at a time when we need solutions, even if they are only baby steps.
I want to say one last thing. I really identify with the deep connection to the natural world and the instinctual drive to protect it. That being said, everything that you are striving to protect is now seriously threatened because of the changing climate. If you save the mountains today, and do nothing to significantly mitigate the changing climate, you’ve won the battle and lost the war.
Permalink |
Two wrongs do not make a right. Destroying our mountains in Vermont because we’re blowing up mountains in West Virginia, fracking for gas, drilling for oil, keeping old nuclear power plants operating, putting waste in flood plains is just more irrational idiocy.
I highly recommend listening to the West Virginia scientists on this radio program (the last part, though the first part about noise is excellent, relevant and important, too) http://www.windwiseradio.org/2012/08/infrasound-with-dr-alec-salt-georgia-mountain-vermont-dead-indiana-bat-in-west-virginia/ discussing wind development in West Virginia. Some of us in Vermont have been criticized for talking about ridgeline wind development as mountaintop mining (which is it, it’s a large rock quarrying and crushing operation). These WV scientists say that ridgeline wind development is second only to mountaintop removal for its environmental destruction.
Yes, I am aware that Vermont has been in a drought. But headwater streams have been filled on Lowell, it’s a narrow ridgeline and the reports of visitors now is it is hot, like an oven. All that exposed rock is heating up the entire mountain. The core of the mountains has been ripped out of it. I was up there last year and it was cool, rich with moss and water, with a tree canopy. The tree canopy is gone, the headwaters have been filled, there is the equivalent of two or three Wal-Mart parking lots on the ridgeline now, with Class A1 waters above 2500 feet destroyed forever. This is not something that can be put back, or that will recover if the turbines are removed. Our own scientists in Vermont who have worked decades to protect these very sensitive high elevation areas are grieving the loss of everything they have worked for, and which our state laws would normally have protected. Vermont’s water quality standards require protecting and maintaining water quality. It is absolutely stunning to see the speed with which our state and federal agencies have thrown out the rules to enable these destructive developments. The one thing that I consistently hear is just how much profit there is in this. That’s what it’s all about, corporate profits at the expense of our people, land, air, water, property rights, and investments.
I live off grid with solar and have a relatively low carbon footprint, unlike Gov. Shumlin, Bill McKibben, Bernie Sanders and those who rail about climate change and the damage being done to polar bears. Those “leaders” all have very high carbon footprints. Your question suggests that those of us engaging in the wind debate have not done any research. I’ve been researching whether or not wind turbines effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions for more than three years. All I can tell you is that in the New England grid, we do not know. What astounds me is that so many people who are otherwise very intelligent and have the same ability to do research are willing to “believe” in wind, without doing any research themselves.
I also recommend going to energizevermont.org, which is doing exactly what you suggest, laying out a constructive plan for Vermont to address climate change in a meaningful way. We’re all in this together and the sooner people get off their positions and start working together, the better. Right now, big wind development on ridgelines is enormously destructive to our common interests of moving to a renewable energy future that Vermonters can live with and embrace. The fact is nobody wants to live near these big noisy machines. It’s corporate greed in the extreme, foreign corporations fueled by taxpayer dollars and totally at odds with the opportunities that exist in Vermont to meet our energy needs through community renewable energy development.
Permalink |
Leila,
You should watch the video on the Energize Vermont website. It might help you understand where industrial wind opponents are coming from.
I think you’ll find that many opponents of industrial-scaled wind projects are taking more than just baby steps towards solving these problems. It’s tempting to imagine that the grandest solutions will have the greatest positive impact, but there are countless instances throughout history of systems, structures, and cultures that were engineered to last, yet failed under their own weight, or simply continue to function at a loss. The Lowell project is yet another Rube Goldberg machine. Enormous infrastructure for very little gain.
Your last two sentences sum up an attitude I am encountering more and more. compact fluorescent bulb and smart meter proponents are convinced that failing to swap out every incandescent bulb or analog meter will be our end. This narrow perspective ignores the fact that there are unanticipated or intentionally-hidden costs to these technologies. It’s understandable that our capitalistic society would search for solutions to our climate and resource challenges that are only available for purchase, with planned obsolescence. As it turns out, the things that will help the most cost the least, or are free. Appropriate technology and permaculture are the future, even if we’ll always have to look at those ugly towers, long after they’ve stopped spinning.
Permalink |
Hi Matt. Thanks for your response, which I thought was well-thought and respectful. I worked in the wind industry in various capacities for about ten years (although I don’t anymore)so I have a unique perspective on both the promise and the limitations that the technology can offer. We can disrespectfully disagree with regards to the potential gain or promise of wind energy. Many of the arguments against wind (intermittent vs. baseload, capacity factor, etc) are simply inaccurate, or originate because of lack of understanding of how energy is created, purchased and distributed. At least this is my experience based on everything I have seen from ten years in the energy industry.
That being said, I wholly agree with your last sentiment. My background is in natural resources, and both of my degrees (u.g. env. bio and grad env. sustainability) are related to ecology/biology/sustainability. My experience, after working in private industry for all those years, is that when you have a hammer every project starts looking like a nail. As a systems thinker this has always been a source of personal frustration because my experience is that the best solutions emerge from the characteristics, resources and limitations of each particular location or situation. If you are saying that free market capitalism is not the best way to address big, complex societal problems like climate change, I will jump on that band wagon every time.
I agree with you that developing low-cost, low-technology solutions to complex social and environmental problems must become a top priority for everyone working on these issues. This becomes especially important when we start to include developing countries without access to infrastructure, capital or technical expertise. It is wonderful to erect a solar system that pumps water from a well for a village, until the system breaks and the closest technician is 12,000 miles away in another country (this actually happened).
That was the point of my original post. We are in a much more dire situation ecologically than I think most people are willing to face up to. If folks don’t like wind, come to the table with something better. I’m glad that wind opponents are working on alternatives. Wind supporters are working on alternatives too. We need every idea and solution on the table, and we need to make progress as efficiently and effectively as possible. Low-cost, low-tech solutions that are accessible to everyone are the best kind, as long as they are implementable and people will adopt them. Charlotte is grazing sheep on their cemeteries to save on fuel and fertilization costs. France is giving out chickens to their residents to reduce solid waste. People are building houses out of recycled shipping containers. There are good solutions out there, and all of them are needed. My only request is that if you don’t want something, provide an alternate solution for people to adopt that will be at the least, equally effective.
In response to your last comment, I think wind turbines spinning in the breeze are beautiful. Aesthetics are always going to be relative.
Permalink |
the windmills aren’t about energy conservation. check out “thrivemovement.com” it’s a game changer
Permalink |
I visited Lowell Mountain last November 11 with opponents of the Kingdom Community Wind project, so I have some sense of what’s at stake up there — how much the physical environment has been changed as the result of the construction. And I don’t see how anyone of goodwill can fail to respect those who believe this intrusion — indeed, the whole project — is an ill-considered human intervention in the natural world.
But I am still troubled by the notion that a project opponent would deliberately commit a crime just because he “wanted to make a statement.” That seems mighty self-indulgent to me — unless you don’t mind if everyone, including those responsible for the wind project, likewise disregard the rule of law whenever they feel a need to express themselves. Would project opponents suffer GMP CEO Mary Powell trespassing on the Nelson land so as to express her disagreement with the protestors’ encampment there?
Nobody has to like the Kingdom Community Wind project, but neither can anyone reasonably claim that the project failed to run the applicable administrative gauntlet. Appropriately enough, there was skeptical and rigorous scrutiny.
My former life in utility regulation leaves me with a visceral understanding that nobody truly loves an investor-owned utility (i.e., GMP). But those who rail against GMP in this context overlook the facts that (a) the Department of Public Service, which is tasked with representing the public, fully participated in the proceedings by which the wind project was permitted by the Public Service Board, (b) Kingdom Community wind is actually a joint project of GMP and the community-owned Vermont Electric Cooperative, whose members overwhelmingly endorsed the project (by approving the necessary transmission upgrade), and (c) it simply will not do, in a state where everyone reasonably expects electricity to be available but also wants to reduce carbon emissions drastically, to give individual communities or landowners veto power over projects like this one.
Permalink |
This group was speaking with the only voice open to them at this point and they have my deep respect and gratitude. Others would be well served to listen to them and prevent any such projects from ever reaching the PSB.
Industrial sites do not belong on our mountaintops, and some environmental groups are late to the table.
Committing to love the land in a world of exploitation is a high calling.
Permalink |
Don, I am surprised you write this: “Would project opponents suffer GMP CEO Mary Powell trespassing on the Nelson land so as to express her disagreement with the protestors’ encampment there?”
That’s exactly what Mary Powell and GMP did, they trespassed with armed police and dogs onto the Nelson land to express her disagreement with protesters’ encampment there. GMP got a TRO on a Friday afternoon without the Nelsons even having a chance to respond. The Nelsons have rights, too. Numerous lawyers have told me that the Judge had no legal basis for giving GMP rights over the Nelson’s property, and without compensation.
You seem to be saying that people should respect the PSB and DPS processes. It’s hard to do that when DPS said the project was not in the public good during the Douglas administration, and then as soon as Shumlin got in office, DPS flipped its position without any facts changing. It’s hard to have faith in the PSB process when hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent by neighbors and towns to participate in a limited way, and everything they brought to the PSB was ignored.
The ‘RUBBER STAMP BOARD’ is alive and well. The people who live around the mountains and who care about our natural resources and communities are grieving a deep loss, not just of the land and their investments, but also a government that aligns itself with corporations against the public. The only thing I have a hard time understanding is why more people aren’t lying down in front of the bulldozers, because that is the level of anger that is festering among the people who have seen a total abuse of our regulatory process by GMP, VEC and Governor Shumlin.
Permalink |
if the wind turbines are about renewable energy, why weren’t the cops riding bicycles when they made the pinch?
Permalink |
Vermonters need full discloser from GMP about the carbon footprint of their wind development project. When I was there last week I saw an oil delivery truck filling diesel fuel tanks. A conservative estimate of the total quantities of explosives used at the site, 1 million pounds, means that 9000 gallons of fuel oil have been used just in the blasting, injected into the ground and groundwater.
Mr. Kreis, with all due respect, what I observed with the PSB process in the Lowell case was stunning in its speed and willingness to give GMP just about everything they wanted, and when they wanted it. In one instance, the attorney for the Towns filed something mid-day which the PSB turned around and responded to within two hours, giving ANR 24 hours to respond. I’ve never seen anything like the speed with which the PSB jumped to give GMP everything they wanted.
Contrast that with the situation of the Georgia Mountain wind neighbors, who pleaded with the PSB in a letter on July 3 for immediate relief from the excessive blasting, flyrock on neighboring property, and issues with a dairy farmer needing to use his upper pasture. The PSB responded to their letter today. More than a month later. And in their response, they once again give all the rights to GMCW and none to the neighbors.
I’m sorry, but unless you are paying attention to the details of these processes, you have no business suggesting they have been fair. The PSB is now the “Rubber Stamp Board” and the public is not their concern.
Permalink |
Annette,
Placing events in context is proper. Orchestrating the players largely took place behind the scenes.
The PSB, which is influenced by Shumlin, but making a big effort to appear to be protecting the Public Good, was concerned GMP, which is a protected by Shumlin, would be missing out on the federal subsidies due to deadlines, i.e., nothing was to delay the PSB part of the project.
Permalink |
“The PSB, which is influenced by Shumlin” Could you please tell us precisely how?
Permalink |
John,
Annette has frequently written about the PSB procedures regarding wind energy being more or less pro forma, ignoring Act 250 because the legislature came up with a new act to suit wind energy promoters to essentially bypass Act 250.
Acoustics experts were heard by the PSB and in private emails to me they stated they might as well have spoken to a wall, despite the fact the Vermont noise codes are based on WHO guidelines, and WHO saying these guidelines do not apply to noise from wind turbines which is unique, i.e., not comparable with highway noise or lawn mower noise, and Vermont embarking on ill-advised, expensive wind energy and still not having a noise code applicable to wind turbines.
A similar situation of hearing and not listening, more or less ignoring people is going on regarding basing F-35s at Burlington Airport.
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/84293/wind-turbine-noise-and-air-pressure-pulses
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/89476/wind-energy-co2-emissions-are-overstated
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/98061/irelands-wind-energy-export-plan
Permalink
Sec. 248 pertaining to energy development pre-dates the development of utility scale wind power in Vermont by almost 30 years. It includes all of the relevant criteria of Act 250, so it is deliberately misleading to say that the PSB ignores Act 250 or that the legislature came up with a “new Act” allowing wind developers to “bypass” Act 250.
Furthermore, it was the Governor’s (Douglas) Blue Ribbon
Commission on Wind Energy Regulatory Policy that found no major reason why wind development should not continue to be covered by Sec. 248, and not subjected to Act 250 review in lieu of or in addition to Sec 248 review.
All of the current PSB commissioners have been in place since the Douglas administration, so like Mr Greenberg I’d be interested to know how it is that Governor Shumlin influences PSB’s decisions.
Permalink
None of which even addresses the question I asked. Even if one were to grant every one of your arguments, they show no connection at all between the PSB and Peter Shumlin. So again, precisely what’s the basis for that statement?
Permalink |
Destroying VT?
Come on! They’d rather have nuclear power than wind mills?
We have to start somewhere people. Hopefully one day every ridge in the country will be lined with wind mills. Everyone wants electricity, but no one wants what has to be done to have it.
Permalink |
Rob,
30 V.S.A. Sec. 248 is administered by Vermont’s Public Service Board, a quasi-judicial board with three appointed members.
Section 248 should not be confused with Vermont’s comprehensive law governing land development and subdivision – Act 250 which would never allow the wholesale destruction of a ridge line in Vermont.
Annette has frequently written about the PSB procedures regarding wind energy being more or less pro forma, ignoring Act 250 because the legislature came up with a new act “Section 248″ to better suit wind energy promoters to essentially bypass the traditional administrative procedures of Act 250 which has served Vermont very well.
Acoustics experts regarding Lowell Mountain were heard by the PSB and in private emails to me they stated they might as well have spoken to a wall, despite the fact the Vermont noise codes are based on WHO guidelines, and WHO saying these guidelines do not apply to noise from wind turbines which is unique, i.e., not comparable with highway noise or lawn mower noise, and despite Vermont embarking on ill-advised, expensive wind energy and still not having a noise code applicable to wind turbines.
A similar situation of hearing and not listening, more or less ignoring people, is going on regarding basing F-35s at Burlington Airport.
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/84293/wind-turbine-noise-and-air-pressure-pulses
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/89476/wind-energy-co2-emissions-are-overstated
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/98061/irelands-wind-energy-export-plan
Permalink |
Have the military build he wind turbines; then anyone who objects can be called an anti-American traitor who doesn’t support the troops.