Senators say three year wind moratorium is “urgent”

Two senators — a Democrat and a Republican — are pushing for a three-year moratorium on large-scale wind development in Vermont, and Republican House leaders support similar legislation. But the measure may be stopped fast in its tracks when it slams into House Speaker Shap Smith, D-Morrisville, and the wall of Democrats at his back.

Sens. Joe Benning, R-Caledonia, and Bob Hartwell, D-Bennington, are spearheading a bill that they and other legislators hope to present to the Senate at the beginning of the session. Some of Benning’s constituents in the Northeast Kingdom are up in arms about the Sheffield wind project, a proposed wind farm in Newark and surrounding towns, and Green Mountain Power’s 21-turbine farm in Lowell. Hartwell is concerned about the lack of public input and current government practices surrounding such projects.

Last year, the Senate shot down Benning’s proposal for a two-year moratorium on large wind. Since then, opposition to industrial wind projects has mounted, with a recent Montpelier demonstration drawing nearly 200 protesters.

Gov. Peter Shumlin has acknowledged local opposition to some of these projects, and he created an energy siting commission in early October to analyze how electricity generating projects are permitted in Vermont. Smith said he would prefer to wait until this report is complete before deciding on whether a moratorium is appropriate. The commission, however, isn’t slated to finish its work until the end of the legislative session, and Benning and Hartwell said time is of the essence.

“I think it’s an urgent problem and should be vetted as soon as possible,” Hartwell said.

The new proposal would up the ante from last year, not only increasing the length of the moratorium but also decreasing the size of projects considered “large scale.” Last year, Benning’s proposal for a moratorium pertained to projects that were 2.2 megawatts or greater. This year, the proposal would pertain to projects of a “considerably” smaller size, but he said that personal small-scale wind production should not be affected. He and his fellow legislators haven’t ironed out the exact size that would define large-scale projects.

“The reason for the three years is that the Northeastern Vermont Development Association up here pushed for a longer moratorium,” said Benning. “The idea behind a moratorium is not to stop everything forever. It’s to sit back and take notice of what we have through an analysis and look at how (these projects are) actually performing and decide whether this is the direction we want to go.”

The proposed bill, which Aaron Adler a lawyer with the Legislative Council is drafting, would require large wind projects to obtain an Act 250 permit, said Benning and Hartwell. Act 250 is the state’s governing land-use law, which pertains to a range of commercial developments in Vermont and varies in its execution depending on a project’s nature and locality.

Industrial wind proposals don’t trigger review by an Act 250 commission because they are energy projects. They fall under Section 248 and require a certificate of public good from the Public Service Board, the quasi-judicial body charged with permitting energy generating projects.

Sarah Hofmann, deputy commissioner of the Department of Public Service, said including language about Act 250 was unnecessary in this proposed bill, pointing to (b)(5) of that law.

“I think it’s superfluous,” she said. “The separate legislation makes sense because the way Section 248 is written, it encompasses the Act 250 criteria.”

Benning and Hartwell said that the bill may include a “setback” requirement that would prohibit large wind projects within a certain distance of residential zones, and the bill might also include language about developing such projects on public lands.

The two senators are lining up support from colleagues around the state.

“I can safely say that all of the Northeast Kingdom state Senate candidates are in favor of a moratorium, and I believe the Rutland contingent will be coming on shortly,” Benning said. “So, you’ve got bipartisan support, and you’ve got different pockets of the state that are affected.”

On the House side of the legislature, Republican Minority Leader Don Turner, R-Milton, said he and his deputy Brian Savage, R-Swanton, are working on a bill that would call for a two-year moratorium on large wind development. The two Republican leaders, who have just begun drawing up the details, will likely contend with opposition from Democratic leadership.

Speaker Smith, whose party holds 96 of the House’s 150 seats, is not in favor of such action.

“My view is that we have a siting commission,” he said. “We ought to wait for their report. And if we think there’s a concern about energy development, then perhaps what we need to do is put a moratorium on all energy generation projects and figure out what the mix needs to be.”

Andrew Stein

Leave a Reply

48 Comments on "Senators say three year wind moratorium is “urgent”"

Comment Policy

VTDigger.org requires that all commenters identify themselves by their authentic first and last names. Initials, pseudonyms or screen names are not permissible.

No personal harassment, abuse, or hate speech is permitted. Be succinct and to the point. If your comment is over 500 words, consider sending a commentary instead.

We personally review and moderate every comment that is posted here. This takes a lot of time; please consider donating to keep the conversation productive and informative.

The purpose of this policy is to encourage a civil discourse among readers who are willing to stand behind their identities and their comments. VTDigger has created a safe zone for readers who wish to engage in a thoughtful discussion on a range of subjects. We hope you join the conversation.

Privacy policy
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Richard Sedano
3 years 7 months ago

So many words but no evidence supporting the claim of lack of public input in siting. What happened in both certificate processes is public so it will just take some reporting to find out. Is is possible that the sponsors’ complaint is about the outcome, not the process?

3 years 7 months ago
Richard, I appreciate your comment regarding process versus outcome. My motivation for change stems from witnessing the process as it has been exercised here in the Kingdom. Take Newark, which is facing a proposal that would lead to 35 new towers in the area. The town voted overwhelmingly to halt the process. The Northeastern Vermont Development Association has called for a moratorium. Nevertheless, the Public Service Board marches on in a direction we have every reason to believe will ignore that public input. If the town and the regional development association statements aren’t indicative of “the public” will, then what… Read more »
Avram Patt
3 years 7 months ago
As part of the PSB’s voluminous and lengthy review of the Sheffield project, an entire day was spent viewing not just the project site but the viewscape from all vantage points near and far. This was a public site visit that anyone could participate in. The 3 Board members, their staff, Department of Public Service staff, the developers, all the opposing intervenors, local officials and anyone else who wanted to drove through the entire area in a caravan, stopping at key vantage pounts including along I 91, where large photo simulations were viewed on location, the developers witnesses were questioned… Read more »
3 years 7 months ago
Avram, Thousands of people living near this expensive, 459-ft tall, industrial wind turbine facility have been dreading their “participating and hosting” for more than 2 years. Construction of more of such useless systems will increase their numbers to tens of thousands; votes, votes. Now that they are EXPERIENCING the adverse environmental, noise, visual, health, property value, quality-of-life, tourist-damaging impacts 24/7/365, they will be “participating” in a different way and state leaders will finally be responding in a different way, as have Senators Benning and Hartwell. The infrasound and low frequency noise, LFN, is harmful to humans. Humans should reside, work,… Read more »
Kathy Leonard
3 years 7 months ago

Avram Patt: “I do not think compaints (sic) about the process are fair or accurate.”
___

I’ve just finished reading Annette Smith’s comments submitted to the Energy Siting Committee, below.
Have you read them yet Avram?
It appears your view of this topic is real for you, but you may be forgetting the viewpoints of others.

I’d love to see those who are interested in this issue, pro OR con, take the time to read this thoughtful document before posting further on this topic.

http://vermontersforacleanenvironment.wordpress.com/2012/11/15/vces-comments-and-observations-on-vermonts-psb-anr-and-act-250-permitting-process/

Avram Patt
3 years 7 months ago
My experience is as a very interested and affected observer of the Shefffield project and it’s approval process, and Annette Smith’s comments about that are hightly selective and skewed to support her predetermined position that a wind project cannot be built on a Vermont ridgeline, under any circumstances, no matter what, period. The process was not expedited, but rather lengthy and extended. The changes in the developer’s plans which she complains about were in fact primarily to accomodate environmental and other siting concerns expressed by parties in the case, including ANR and communities and other affected parties. This case was… Read more »
Michael Colby
3 years 7 months ago

Let’s not forget that Avram Patt supported efforts to ban development of his ridgelines in Worcester. Why? To protect his view and peace and quiet. Too bad he doesn’t have the same concern for Sheffield and Lowell.

Annette Smith
3 years 7 months ago
Sorry to say, but yes, the complaints about the process are warranted. VCE submitted these comments to the Energy Siting Commission http://vermontersforacleanenvironment.wordpress.com/2012/11/15/vces-comments-and-observations-on-vermonts-psb-anr-and-act-250-permitting-process/ which contain specific examples. VCE has been receiving complaints about wind projects. We have received three complaints about the blinking red lights from people living in Barton. Barton voted unanimously to to oppose the wind project. We have not received any noise complaints from Barton. Noise complaints have come from Sheffield and Sutton, from 3/4 to 2 1/2 miles. There is plenty of real estate to purchase around the three wind project mountains, so I hope everyone who… Read more »
3 years 7 months ago
The problem I see is that of scalability. What use is a large project if one half the size is not half as good? It would have been one thing if GMP had built a one lane “toll road” up to the top of Lowell and began building a few small turbines, then a few larger ones, then added a couple of the monsters that are now in place. Instead, it was a race against the clock to build this Rube Goldberg machine before January 2013, leaving very little time for public input and many with the feeling that Vermont… Read more »
3 years 7 months ago

Sarah,

“I think it’s superfluous,” she said. “The separate legislation makes sense because the way Act 248 is written, it encompasses the Act 250 criteria.”

YOU MUST BE JOKING. This is Vermont, not California with its 12-lane divided highways and multi-story clover leafs.

It is not the law, but the fact the UNELECTED, lapdog VT- PSB ADMINISTERING the law that is the problem, and doing it, ad hoc, without a proper noise and setback code.

This is behind-the-scenes-oligarchs disenfranchising Vermonters. Honorable, expert professionals shaking their heads after testifying before the PSB.

The sooner this expensive, SOCIALLY-DIVISIVE, health-damaging, environment-damaging farce ends, the better.

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/84293/wind-turbine-noise-and-air-pressure-pulses
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/61309/lowell-mountain-wind-turbine-facility-vermont

Rob Pforzheimer
3 years 7 months ago
Shap Smith is right in saying, “perhaps what we need to do is put a moratorium on all energy generation projects.” This is an excellent idea considering there is currently, and for the foreseeable future an over supply of generation in New England. Energy efficiency and conservation will accomplish far more than divisive, environmentally destructive, property devaluing, rate increasing, inefficient wind projects that do nothing to lower emissions. PSB board member Coen told me, “You people need to take your complaints across the street to the legislature.” That’s what these senators are doing. The legislature is where the wind insanity… Read more »
3 years 7 months ago
Rob, Shumlin used to be the leader of the Senate. He promoted Chap, the windman,, et al, as allies while he rose to become Governor, opportunistically using Vermont Yankee as a pole vault. Most of the rest of the legislators are yes persons. They look at the smoke direction and vote accordingly, without asking why there IS smoke. You are absolutely right, the last thing New England needs is even more generating capacity, MW. There already is more than enough capacity in generation AND transmission. We should be concentrating on investing EE so the generating capacity AND transmission will be… Read more »
Luann Therrien
3 years 7 months ago
FOR SALE – WIND SUPPORTERS WELCOME! 50 acres of PRIME SUGAR BUSH in the N.E.K.  Only $250,000 and it’s yours today. Come and buy our beautiful piece of property and you can enjoy living 5.2 miles from Barton on Sheffield Heights. Wind Supportes will not mind the 16 turbine Industrial Wind Project with the 16 turbines all located from just under 3/4 of a mile to not quite 2 miles from your new home. You can enjoy the Whoosh, Whoosh, Whoosh of the turbine blades, along with the mechanical sounds produced from the wind gereration. When the wind is comming… Read more »
3 years 7 months ago

Luann,
You may soon get an offer from the wind turbine owners.. I think they are Spanish. Shumlin, et al, is defending THEIR interests, instead of Vermonters.

Luann Therrien
3 years 7 months ago
  We are hopeful but not holding our breath. First Wind has already proven themselves to be less than honest.   One would think Shumlin would be more supportive of the people in his State, and not of OUT OF STATE Industrial Wind Companies that are only looking to benefit from Tax Credits paid by Vermont tax payers. Those tax credits could have been better spent in Vermont by home and business owners to set up their own alternative power sources. There are local companies here in the state for such installation, so much for ‘buy local’.   Shumlin seems to be too… Read more »
Craig Kneeland
3 years 7 months ago
The employment and economic activity associated with wind development and construction should be considered. These are skilled construction workers involved in the heroic act of saving our planet from global warming. We should keep them employed, doing what very few people can do. Kicking a can down the road, simply because we don’t have 100% agreement about wind development now will not solve anything. Waiting two or three years will probably result in no one changing their mind on this issue. Meanwhile, greenhouse gases heat our planet and species disappear. Let’s keep this productive, worthy, process going. A majority of… Read more »
3 years 7 months ago

Craig,
“Waiting two or three years will probably result in no one changing their mind on this issue”

Support among Vermonters for wind energy has declined from 90% to 65% in one year.

Have you heard about energy efficiency? It is much less costly, than wind energy AND it does not make noise, is not socially-divisive.

See my above comment.

Rob Macgregor
3 years 7 months ago

Mr. Post – kindly provide the details of the surveys that show this decline -I’ve followed the statewide surveys since 2003, and I’ve never seen a survey that put support above the low 70% range which would mean that the level of support is actually still quite broad, and not much changed over roughly a decade.

3 years 7 months ago
Craig, As you have sources since 2003, please cite the URLs. Sources before 2010 are irrelevant, as people were ignorant and caught up in starry-eyed, wind energy rah-rah. What really counts is now that the Lowell IWTs are mostly up and running, people, even in bribed Lowell, residing near the wind turbines, say within a few miles, have changed their minds, because they are now EXPERIENCING the adverse noise, health, environmental, property value, visible, and quality of life impacts. They profess to be totally shocked. They were lied to, deceived, bamboozled, scammed. It is somewhat of a blessing Vermont has… Read more »
Rob Macgregor
3 years 7 months ago

That was a pretty long winded non-answer to my request, which I’ll not dignify with a response. How about that survey source? Usually you’re so eager to link to your own articles….

3 years 7 months ago

Rob,
69.4% of Vermonters voted in favor of ridge line wind in May 2012. I stated it was 65%.
http://www.wcax.com/story/18604822/poll-where-vt-voters-stand-on-energy-issues

As you know, adverse developments to wind turbines took place since then.

There were large demonstrations in Montpelier and hundreds of people near wind turbines are signing petitions to have a 3-year moratorium.

The pro-view percentage would likely be less now that people near wind turbines are being adversely impacted.

Sally Shaw
3 years 7 months ago
If the anti-wind people are so concerned about “being forced to live near these enormous industrial machines” and about ” pregnant mothers, babies, infants and school-age children’s… genetic damage impacts, ” where have they been vis a vis the leaking, radioactive carcinogen spewing Vermont Yankee reactor, forced on us in 1972, and operating now in violation of the public will and official permits? Two wrongs don’t make a right. But VT needs to figure out what constitutes life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness vis a vis our energy needs– how much do we need, how can we supply it,… Read more »
3 years 7 months ago
Sally, My take on global warming is that it is here to stay, no matter what we do. The Sun’s energy intercepted by the earth each day is about 12,000 times what mankind uses each day. The Sun is king. At least 2 C in world average temperature increase is already baked into existing conditions. CO2 ppMv will be increasing for at least the next 4-5 decades, likely longer, due to developing nations burning coal in a dirty manner. Any actions, if started to-day, will take decades to implement and will cost tens of trillions of dollars. Their CO2 emission… Read more »
3 years 7 months ago

Sally,
“Two wrongs don’t make a right.”

You are right, adding wind turbines to VY would be a double wrong, but VY produces CO2-free, low-cost (about 5c/kWh), STEADY, energy, 24/7/365, even during Irene and Sandy, whereas heavily-subsidized wind turbines produce variable, intermittent junk energy at 10 c/kWh (per GMP), 15 c/kWh unsubsidized, per US-DOE.

In Vermont at least 30% of the hours of the year, there is not enough wind to turn the rotors, and about 70% of the hours of the year, there is no or minimal solar energy. Not good for a modern society that needs 24/7/365 energy.

3 years 7 months ago
Sally, New England annual average grid prices are about 5 c/kWh, nearly unchanged for the past 3 years, and likely to stay that way, because of a LONG-TERM, abundant supply of natural gas. Hydro-Quebec hydro energy is available at about 6 c/kWh. It is STEADY, CO2-free, available 24/7/365, rain or shine, windy or not windy. Vermont Yankee’s nuclear energy is available at about 6 c/kWh. It is STEADY, CO2-free, available 24/7/365, rain or shine, windy or not windy. Lowell Mountain wind energy, heavily-subsidized with state and federal subsidies, is available at about 10 c/kWh. Its cost would be 15 c/kWh,… Read more »
Barbara Durkin
3 years 7 months ago
Stop the waste and destruction of habitat funded by US citizens forced to pay higher costs for zero capacity value wind energy. VT should not increase the total of 14,000 abandoned wind turbines in the US thru the sacrifice of your actual values, like your magnificient mountain views that recharge visitors and residents spirits. Wind energy may be the greatest and most cruel hoax of our time. It robs future generations precious gifts from the present and past generations. New England’s largest wind developer, UPC First Wind, merits investigation. UPC First Wind is Hawaii’s largest wind developer making headlines for… Read more »
3 years 7 months ago
Barbara, Here is an excerpt from this article: http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/53258/examples-wind-power-learn KAHUKU IWT FACILITY, OAHU, EXCESSIVE CAPITAL COST Oahu has an island grid system with no/little interconnection with other islands. Wind energy must be smoothed before entering the grid. No existing conventional units can be shut down, because 10-15 % of the year there is no wind energy as wind speeds are too low (7.5 mph) to turn the rotors or too high for safety. The 30 MW IWT facility, with 12 Clipper Liberty wind turbines, @ $2,000/kW, requires a capital cost of about $60 million. The project total cost is at… Read more »
Stanley Shapiro
3 years 7 months ago
This dog doesn’t die because those who are subjected to proximity of these industrial wind turbines do not live in Vermont anymore.The source of the loss is if you are in auditory impingement you no longer have peace and quiet let alone your health. No matter what data is presented you are done.People are not stupid .They know at an instinctual level when harm is coming.The people who are enraged at the wind turbine incursion in Vermont are neither Progressive ,Republican, nor Democrat;rich or poor;they are simply people who do not want their lives ‘taken’,which is what these projects and… Read more »
Jim Ru
3 years 7 months ago

There are no future generations. The game is over. Read Bill McKibben’s article in Rolling stone.

Do the math yourself.

Whatevers. But when you insist that we must do this or that for future generations, you’re blowing hot air.

Fossil fuels have changed the climate. We either stop it now, or we all die, and soon.

Have a nice day.

Rob Pforzheimer
3 years 7 months ago

Wind turbines have not and will never stop the use of fossil fuel. A more effective way of limiting CO2 would be if McKibben and his blind faith, sky is falling acolytes would stop exhaling.

Stanley Shapiro
3 years 7 months ago

Regarding the comments by Shaw and Ru.There is a legitimate discussion that should take place.That is do wind turbines on ridgelines do anything to reduce global warming? I believe this is not the case.The hysteria of ‘we must do everything and anything as long as it does not use fossil fuels’ should be abandoned for a larger discussion of preserving what we have and not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

David Dempsey
3 years 7 months ago
Shap Smith wants to wait for the energy siting commission’s report before considering any moratorium on energy development. Because the report won’t be done until after the session, the issue will be tabled for another year and wind energy projects will continue to be approved by the PSB during that time. The commission was created by Shumlin and the members were appointed by Shumlin supposedly to get public opinion about new energy projects. With the Shumlin administration producing the report, the commission is nothing more than Shumlins way of making it look like he cares about public opinion. Shap knows… Read more »
Dennis Liddy
3 years 7 months ago

A three year moratorium is essential. GMP does not have to make public the production levels of the Lowell project for two years. It will be two years before anyone except GMP knows for sure if the Lowell project is even meeting production levels that are required to keep it operating. Giving the third year for lawmakers to examine that project is necessary.

bob hartwell
3 years 7 months ago
As a sponsor legislation being drafted to contend with the severe impacts of industrial wind, it is important to note that, very much contrary to the comments of Deputy Commissioner Hoffman of the Public service Department, the Public Service Board has a clear record of ignoring Act 250 standards in the Act 248 process; the failure to consider Act 250 goes to the heart of the problem. There is virtually no citizens input, no control by the towns and no respect for the criteria in the Act 250 process. It is unfortunate to see, yet again, that the Department of… Read more »
3 years 7 months ago
Bob, Thank you for standing up for your constituents in the NEK, which is a prime target of the Shumlin ridge line destruction derby. He wants to destruct as many ridge lines, as quickly as possible, and get as many subsidies for his wind energy pals. RE is a NET job destroyer. For every job gained in RE, multiple jobs are destroyed in other economic sectors. See this article. http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/71771/energy-efficiency-first-renewables-later I hope you will find some time to read my articles on wind energy. You will find them at THE ENERGY COLLECTIVE under Willem Post. If you need technical assistance… Read more »
Jim Wiegand
3 years 7 months ago
A 3 year moratorium for Vermont is a very good idea for many reasons. This 3 year period will give Vermont a chance to observe the whooping crane population as it struggles to survive the invasion of wind turbines that have been thrust upon their world. Vermont can then compare this population and extrapolate their struggle to all the bird species that are forced to live with these turbines. Bird species like loggerhead shrikes that do not have a high profile or any of the scrutiny as the whooping cranes. It has been kept hidden, but they are all being… Read more »
Kevin Jones
3 years 7 months ago
An important point is ignored in this debate. Whether you are for or against wind development in Vermont you should be concerned that because Vermont’s legislature has created the most fundamentally flawed renewable energy program in the country, the SPEED program, their is no net carbon benefit for Vermont from these projects. The SPEED Program, unlike the renewable energy laws of all our neighboring states, encourages Vermont’s utilities to sell the renewable energy credits from these projects into out of state renewable energy programs and they are doing just that. Because of the legislature’s SPEED requirements, all of the large… Read more »
3 years 7 months ago

Dear Senators Benning and Hartwell (and I’m sure there will be many more):

Thank you for your efforts to put some much needed brakes on wind tower construction in Vermont.

I am quite literally unable to sleep, and enjoy the quiet of Vermont, in light of the cruelty being inflicted upon my neighbors, and the callous response of those with dollar signs in their eyes. It is sickening to watch.

In light of the fact that wind power is obviously on its way out in Vermont, this will be my last post.

Ellin Anderson
Brownington

http://www.ellinanderson.com/

Rob Macgregor
3 years 7 months ago
A moratorium is not productive. Contrary to statements in other comments, no projects are far enough along in the permitting process that they would be approved before the siting commission delivers its recommendations. Yes, there are 3 applications for met towers in the various stages, but even if approved these would take roughly a year for data collection before actual projects are proposed. Accordingly the creation of and timeline for the siting commission acts as a de-facto moratorium at least until next spring. Any recommendations for significant changes to the existing Sec. 248 permit process could delay the introduction of… Read more »
3 years 7 months ago
Rob, Facts on the “ground” matter. When a project gets a PSB approval to construct, land has already been bought or leased, preliminary design drawings have been made, specifications have been drawn up, financing has been arranged, MEP testing has been completed, all to enable the PSB to judge the project and then issue approval. Because of advanced drilling techniques, the world has available about a 300-year supply of low-cost, clean-burning natural gas. Those techniques will be used all over the world where there is shale. Coal mines will shut down over time, the most expensive ones first. The gas… Read more »
Rob Macgregor
3 years 7 months ago
What does it matter that development paperwork is done in anticipation of the permit application and then PSB’s final decision? It still takes at least 3 years or more to get through Vermont’s permit process. As it stands now, since extension of the production tax credit is still pending and Vermont’s permitting process is being reviewed, it will most likely be at least 2 years before any new permit applications are filed with the PSB. As to your comments about natural gas, there doesn’t seem to be any recognition on your part that natgas has its own impacts (with lots… Read more »
3 years 7 months ago
Rob, “It still takes at least 3 years or more to get through Vermont’s permit process.” That is the reason for the Shumlin Commission to EXPEDITE the process. “there doesn’t seem to be any recognition on your part that natgas has its own impacts (with lots of opponents) and that its cost curves will rise as its use increases.” I am very familiar with the pros and cons of coal and gas; during my 30-year career, I designed both type plants. “And no accounting for the eventuality of cap and trade or carbon taxes either, which would certainly have an… Read more »
3 years 7 months ago

Avram, Michael Colby has called you a hypocrite. Is what he said true: “Let’s not forget that Avram Patt supported efforts to ban development of his ridgelines in Worcester.”

Rian Fried, a WEC member.

3 years 7 months ago
Rob, “A much more prudent course of action would be to build the renewables now so we can minimize the carbon loading and conserve the remaining fossil fuels to do the types of work that only they can do.” You are correct in an ideal world, but in the real world, it will not play out that way. The relative economic advantage of coal-based developing nations is low wages and low energy costs. They would not be switching to renewable energy, RE, because it would divert trillion-dollar investments from development over decades AND would increase their energy costs 2 to… Read more »
john burton
3 years 7 months ago
3 years 7 months ago
Andrew, Here is another reason the ridge line wind turbine folly should be abandoned by Vermont before it spends any more money. The Maine energy production results show beyond a doubt these facilities are NOT economically viable. Below is a URL with production data reported by the wind turbine facility owners in Maine. BY LAW, the quarterly data is reported by wind turbine facility owners to the Federal Regulatory Energy Commission, FERC. The results are dismal, much less than the optimistic capacity factors used to get financing from banks and investors, and approval from government regulators, the public and legislators.… Read more »
alice barnett
3 years 7 months ago

Dear WIND developers. I own land 2000 feet from a proposed wind facility. My land is worthless.

3 years 7 months ago
Alice, You are impacted by the “collateral damage” of wind turbines. Part of your net worth was bulldozed by the Shumlin ridge line demolition derby which aims to demolish as many ridge lines as possible, as quickly as possible, to further enrich Vermont’s heavily-subsidized, wind energy oligarchy. Other people are even less fortunate. They have nearby houses that have become unsalable. Staying in such houses is not healthy, because of the unique noise spectrum of wind turbines. http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/84293/wind-turbine-noise-and-air-pressure-pulses At less than 20 Hz (infrasound) and above 20,000 Hz (ultrasound) most people do not “hear” noise, but a person’s ears and… Read more »
wpDiscuz
Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "Senators say three year wind moratorium is “urgent”"