Kreis: The ugliness on Lowell Mountain

Editor’s note: Donald M. Kreis is associate director, and assistant professor of law, at the Institute of Energy and the Environment of Vermont Law School. He also serves on the board of the Vermont Journalism Trust, parent organization of

When vexatious public controversies arise, people often speak of battle lines being drawn. But in the case of utility-scale wind power in Vermont, there is literally a battle line –- and even a dispute over precisely where that line is.

The dateline is Lowell Mountain in the Northeast Kingdom community of Lowell. Drive north along Route 14 to Albany, bang a left on New Street, follow it to Bayley Hazen Road, and eventually you will come to the home of Donald and Shirley Nelson.

On a recent and chilly late Fall Friday, an intrepid writer and law school professor did precisely that.

He did not ring the Nelsons’ doorbell, however. And it is a good thing he did not, for any help they might have provided to such a visitor would have potentially subjected them to criminal prosecution for contempt of court.

It is the Nelsons’ fate to own the property that borders, to the east, the site of Kingdom Community Wind –- a 63-megawatt array of 21 wind turbines, each more than 400 feet tall, that is under construction along 3.2 miles of ridgeline. The project is a joint venture of two Vermont utilities –- Green Mountain Power (GMP) and the Vermont Electric Cooperative (VEC).

Without seeking the Nelsons’ permission –- their land is not posted — you can drive northward past the Nelson homestead, park after a few hundred feet, cross a field on the left side of the road, and walk along a trail that will take you up the side of Lowell Mountain. Eventually the trail leads uphill and, after a series of switchbacks, you come upon a birch tree with a couple of remarkable signs on them.

Instead of the familiar “Posted: no trespassing” warning you might expect in such a spot, there are two 8 ½ x 11 pieces of paper that are laminated and nailed to the tree. One recites, in big letters, “1000’ From Construction Property Line.” The other is a copy of an injunction issued in the above-referenced case by Judge Martin Maley of the Superior Court.

Judge Maley’s order starts off with an explicit finding that the Nelsons and “other persons acting in concert and participation” with them are “improperly interfering” with the construction of the wind turbines. According to the court, the interference consists of “intentionally occupying” the northwest corner of the Nelsons’ property, adjoining the site of Kingdom Community Wind and, indeed, in “close proximity” to the blasting on the site that construction crews are scurrying to complete before winter truly sets in.

“Close proximity,” it turns out, means anything short of 1,000 feet away from the blasting.

Courts issue injunctions in order to use their authority to order people to do things, or not to do them. In this instance, Judge Maley has ordered the Nelsons, and “those acting in concert and participation with them,” from being within 1,000 feet of the boundary line between the project site and the Nelsons’ land “for two hours before blasting and until the all-clear whistle is sounded.”

You could read this as just an expression of benign concern for public safety. Except that Judge Maley’s order explicitly determines that the Nelsons and their collaborators have been deliberately placing themselves within the blasting safety zone so as to impede the project. The Nelson sympathizers accuse GMP of deliberately timing the blasts so that, given the two-hour intervals, the encampment they have established near their property line is effectively out of business during daylight hours on weekdays. And, like the proverbial falling tree, if dissent takes place in the forest when nobody is around to hear it, who will hear it?

In any event, on a day when there is no blasting and thus sheriff or state trooper present at the 1,000 foot marker to enforce the injunction, walking onward along the trail means that before long you come upon the battlefront proper.

On one side, behind a line of blaze-orange tape strung along a series of trees, is the noisy construction site. Large earth-movers rumble, atop a wide swath of gravel, along a ridgeline that has been entirely cleared. The loud sounds of construction –- pounding, digging, trucking -– echo through the hillside, audible even hundreds of feet below.

On the other side of the orange tape, Occupy Wall Street meets the woods of the Northeast Kingdom. There is a small tent city, a fire pit, and lots of signs. “Save the Lowell Mountain Range” is one that hangs in several places; among its 23 bullet points is: “Your Federal tax dollars lining the pockets of a foreign owned company,” referring to GMP’s Canadian parent company, Gaz Metro.

One particularly inscrutable sign reads, simply: “Unless.” The reference may be familiar to fans of the Dr. Seuss classic The Lorax, in which a perfectly fine forest of Truffula trees is razed for profit, notwithstanding the protestations of the fuzzy Lorax who purports to speak for the otherwise-silent flora. In defeat, the Lorax disappears, leaving behind just a “small pile of rocks,” bearing the word “unless.” The message, explains Dr. Seuss, is that “unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot . . . nothing’s going to get better. It’s not.”

So, the faceoff along that orange-tape battle line is a clash of cultures. It is also, quite literally, a boundary dispute. The Nelsons contend that the wind turbine project is actually encroaching on their land by more than 150 feet. This claim –- at the heart of the lawsuit that produced the injunction -– was the subject of dueling testimony from each side’s surveyors when the court heard each side’s request for an injunction booting the other off its land. The turbines won; the Nelsons lost.

Though the case technically remains unresolved –- the injunction being a preliminary one – the court made clear its view that, one way or another, the project will be completed as planned. Even if the project is encroaching on the Nelsons’ land, it is all but inevitable that the utility-owners of the turbines can take whatever land they need by eminent domain. Meanwhile, all of the frantic blasting prior to winter arises out of the fact that if the facility does not go on line by the end of 2012, the owners lose some $47 million in production tax credits from the IRS. Conversely, determined the court, any harm occasioned by booting the Nelsons and their allies off land the Nelsons may ultimately prove they own is just “temporary in nature.”

The squabbling over the injunction masks other, more troubling, issues in the litigation.

Judge Maley determined that GMP is likely to succeed on its claim of “nuisance” against the Nelsons. This does not turn on whether anyone is literally a nuisance but, rather, on the question of whether the defendants are interfering with GMP’s use of its land. The Court also determined that GMP is likely to prevail on its claim against the Nelsons of “intentional interference with contract.” The contract here is the one between GMP and its blasting company.

“Nuisance” and “intentional interference with contract” are time-honored concepts in civil tort law, but they typically arise in the context of commercial disputes and/or land-use schemes that are permanently noxious to neighbors. To apply these concepts in the context of social protest, especially in a state like Vermont with a long and honorable history of dissent, is chilling. How dispiriting that the debate over wind power in Vermont has come to this! The law already makes trespassing a crime without setting precedents that would encourage future claims of monetary damages against protest movements. Those potential ill effects of such precedents, unless superseded by the Legislature, will linger long after the blasting on Lowell Mountain is done, just weeks if not days from now.

What got a professor from Vermont Law School invited to visit the battlefront on Lowell Mountain was not any expertise in tort law but his recent Vermont Public Radio commentary praising large wind turbines, even when placed on ridgelines, as beautiful industrial objects. There are no wind turbines yet on Lowell Mountain and, thus, no way to evaluate how beautiful they will be once built. But this much is clear: The signs, the orange tape, the rival camps on opposite sides of a battlefront, and the creative application of tort law by utilities so as to thwart protest? Those things are ugly.

Leave a Reply

16 Comments on "Kreis: The ugliness on Lowell Mountain"


Comment Policy 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
Christian Noll
5 years 2 months ago

“He did not ring the Nelsons’ door bell however. And it is a good thing he did not, for any help they might have provided such a visitor would have potentially subjected them to criminal prosecution for contempt of court.”

Really? Is that a fact? How so?

I agree, “Those things ARE ugly.”

Don Kreis
5 years 2 months ago
Mr. Noll: I respectfully suggest that you read the Preliminary Injunction entered by the Superior Court. Follow this link for all of the documents in the case: The injunction applies not only to Mr. and Mrs. Nelson (whom I have never met or had any contact with) as well as their “agents, employees, attorneys, invitees, licensees, permitees and any and all other persons acting in concert or participation with them.” I don’t know who wrote that language, but whomever typed those words did a pretty good job of including the whole universe of people who so much as have… Read more »
Christian Noll
5 years 2 months ago

Mr. Kreis thank you for the link.

Yes I read the Preliminary Injunction and it does seem like some all encompassing language for just two pages. Isn’t it the judge who writes it?

You mean if you rang the Nelson’s bell to inquire about directions on their property or some other related thing to the Lowel Mountain Wind Project as to ascertain knowledge of it, AND you divulging it to someone else only THEN they’d be potentially criminally liable for contempt of court?

That’s what you meant right? That’s how I understood it.

Please correct me if I’ve misunderstood.

Don Kreis
5 years 2 months ago
No — I wasn’t worried about anyone’s criminal liability but my own. The injunction does not apply to everyone in the world — just people who have some connection to the Nelsons. (Others might be subject to arrest for trespassing, but could not face charges of contempt, which would be a felony.) Would the Nelsons have been violating the injunction by permitting me to be on their land so that I could visit (or at least look at) the project site? I doubt it, but that is ultimately a question for them and not for me or anyone else who… Read more »
Christian Noll
5 years 2 months ago

Professor Kreis thank you.

I needed your explanation as I misinterpreted your use of the word “Them” in the phrase “potentially subjected ‘them’ to criminal prosecution.”

When you said “Them” you meant the visitor (i.e. you) and NOT “Them” the Nelsons.

Gotcha . . . Thank you.

Don Kreis
5 years 2 months ago

p.s. Yes it is the judge, perhaps with the assistance of her or his law clerks, who typically writes preliminary injunctions and other orders. But it’s not unheard of for a judge, particularly one in an overworked state court, to ask the prevailing party — in this instance, GMP — for suggested language in these circumstances. I have no idea if this happened here. If it did, there’s nothing improper about it.

Owen McClain
5 years 2 months ago

Prof. Kreis,

I heard your commentary on the beauty of wind turbines and now I have read your commentary on the ugly nature of the Lowell Mountain dispute. I appreciate your aesthetic conundrum, but even philosophers must decide whether it is worth getting their hands a little dirty to pursue their vision of beauty. Plato himself favored death over exile. I doubt that vigorous civic confrontation is truly ugly, but creative legal maneuvering may strike a little closer to the mark. But even if both are ugly to you, I am still left wondering what your commitment to beauty is.

Don Kreis
5 years 2 months ago
To Owen McClain: I’m at a bit of a loss when it comes to clarifying my commitment to beauty. I disagree with your suggestion that wind turbines might not be ugly but “creative legal maneuvering” is. I think certain industrial objects, as well as a well-crafted, creative, and ultimately persuasive legal argument, are things of beauty. Indeed, I think this might account for why a lawyer like me is interested in architecture. That which is constructed well, in any sense, strikes me as beautiful. What do I find ugly about Green Mountain Power v. Donald and Shirley Nelson? Well, the… Read more »
Owen McClain
5 years 2 months ago
Prof. Kreis: Thank you very much for your response! I agree. I would choose exile as well. In any event, I think there are at least three ways to evaluate whether your devotion to the beauty of wind turbines is attenuated now that you have revealed your respect for the First Amendment. The first would say that your devotion is measured in terms of your contemplation itself. Contemplation is devotion. This philosophy does not resolve the tension between the beauty you articulated in your first commentary with the ugliness described in your second. It revels in this tension. The second… Read more »
Don Kreis
5 years 2 months ago
Owen: I hope it is okay to address you informally. I think I qualify for philosophy no. 1 in the rubric you lay out. Though I do revel in the tension you describe, I think the tension is not as direct as you suppose. Kingdom Community Wind and its majestic wind towers will definitely be built. I think the protestors on the Nelsons’ land, or the realistic among them, understand this. So, when the project opponents exercise their constitutional right to assemble peaceably, they are doing something inherently beautiful that ultimately won’t interfere with the erection of the turbines. I… Read more »
5 years 2 months ago

You can see the ugliness for yourself here
including the latest photos from state agency files of the destruction of the formerly beautiful natural areas with wetlands and headwater streams along the ridgeline.

5 years 2 months ago
There are a few legal issues that are relevant and not mentioned. This situation was made possible because of the ridiculously small setbacks that 1) GMP needed and 2) the PSB approved. A review of ordinances from all over the country was submitted to the PSB showing that the vast majority of municipalities, states and others who write regulations involving wind turbines have set a standard setback of 1.1x the total height with blade extended, or if ice throw is a possibility, 1.5x the total height. For 459 foot tall turbines where there is a potential for ice throw, the… Read more »
Townsend Peters
5 years 2 months ago

The prohibition in the injunction appears not to apply to a person who is not the Nelsons or their agent or acting in concert with the Nelsons.

So the injunction apparently is not about protecting health and safety, since most of the people on the planet would not be subject to it and could cross “the line.”

While I do not agree with the views of those seeking to stop this project, something here smells.

edd foerster
5 years 2 months ago

What “smells” is the contemptuous attitude toward our democratic institutions shown by those who opposed this project through our permitting process and lost. They now believe that their moral superiority gives them the right to disregard the result of our civil institutions and continue opposing the project through obstructionist methods, much like abortion protesters blocking access to women’s clinics, with Annette Smith as their self-appointed Joan of Arc.

Duncan Kilmartin
5 years 2 months ago
Having been a practicing lawyer in the Kingdom for 43 years, recently represented the Nelsons regarding certain issues currently in play, and a lay student of the economic, systemic, structural, governmental, and governance issues involved in GMP/VEC’s Lowell project, I would like to share some views not yet expressed or expressed in a manner I find wanting or incomplete. On the issue of the boundary line between Range 2 and 3, known as a range line some basic facts are important. Trip Wileman, when he was involved with John Zimmerman/Martha Strakus/VERA/EnXco, in 2001 and 2002, attempted unsuccessfully to move the… Read more »
Ken Bechtel
5 years 1 month ago
Has anyone, in the local media, the public or the state government inquired about the necessity of industrial-sized-wind turbine projects as opposed to smaller scale wind? What if instead, the government offered tax credits/incentives/discounts for individuals to buy small-scale windmills for their homes, much like they already do for fitting homes with solar panels. Small-scale windmills won’t produce as much electricity, but they wouldn’t need to. They’d just produce enough to reduce the individual home owners need to use GMP. I know my idea, would cut into GMP’s bottom line, but it could produce actual local jobs, by creating businesses… Read more »
Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "Kreis: The ugliness on Lowell Mountain"