Editor’s note: This op-ed is the text of testimony from Will Wiquist, executive director of the Green Mountain Club, before the Energy Siting Policy Commission on Dec. 5, 2012. The GMC was invited to testify before the commission in the context of the club’s past involvement in Section 248 (Public Service Board) proceedings. The club helped establish the commission as part of a coalition which called for a review of the state’s energy siting policies and procedures.
The Green Mountain Club is the founder and maintainer of the Long Trail. Historically, we have been involved in Vermont public policy discussions when those debates impact the Long Trail and people’s experience on it.
To that end, the club was engaged in the Green Mountain Parkway debate in the 1930s and the creation of Act 250 by the Gibb Commission in 1969 – namely its provisions giving special protection to lands over 2,500 feet.
The 10,000 member, 102-year old Green Mountain Club is entrusted by the Vermont General Assembly “with the responsibility for the leadership in the development of policies” relating to the Long Trail. We know that energy policy – especially wind development siting policy – inescapably relates to the Long Trail.
The Legislature also asked that “the club report to the general assembly such action as it deems may be required to insure the preservation, maintenance, and proper use of the Long Trail system and other hiking trails.” I believe that is essentially what we are doing by engaging in this debate.
The Green Mountain Club understands the existence of climate change and has sought to do our part with 100 percent on-site renewable energy generation at our Waterbury Center headquarters. We also accept that wind energy is already part of Vermont energy portfolio through wind projects in Searsburg and Sheffield, and soon at Georgia and Lowell. We are not interested in reopening those debates, but we are interested – and believe it’s very important to — learn from those choices.
We recently participated in Section 248 proceedings before the Public Service Board regarding the Lowell wind development. The club neither opposed nor supported the project.
Instead, we sought to reduce the impact of the project on the hiking experience on the Long Trail which looks out at the Lowell Range. Specifically, we sought a developer-funded decommissioning plan and radar-activated lighting systems for the proposed towers. The board agreed to both these stipulations – though the lighting system will not be installed until it has FAA approval which we expect by next summer.
The club’s experience before the Public Service Board was productive but expensive and complicated. The club spent $42,000 of its own money to hire counsel and an expert witness. While the club has an excellent staff and dedicated, experienced volunteers, we could not engage in the process without hiring experts. As a volunteer-led organization that built America’s first long-distance hiking trail, it runs counter to our nature to have to hire experts – but we did because we felt this was important for the trail.
The club was able to gain party status for the Lowell proceedings. That status however was limited to our concerns about impacts on the Long Trail and a historic Long Trail shelter. We were not allowed to comment on “any generalized impacts of the project.” We were also initially prohibited from engaging on a decommissioning plan and fund until we successfully appealed that ruling.
Meanwhile, in Act 250 hearings we have been able to engage and play a role while limiting costs. This more open-door public engagement process has allowed the club to raise concerns with projects that impact Vermont hiking trails while also allowing us to move our own projects forward even when they have fallen under Act 250.
While we were satisfied that the Public Service Board heard and considered the concerns we raised, we do feel that it was very expensive and required a great deal of expertise to appropriately engage in the process. We respectfully support a mechanism to fund interveners.
While we were satisfied that the Public Service Board heard and considered the concerns we raised, we do feel that it was very expensive and required a great deal of expertise to appropriately engage in the process. We respectfully support a mechanism to fund interveners. We understand other states have adopted a similar feature. One criterion for eligibility could be whether an intervener offers public benefits.
Having gone through this process and observed other similar proceedings, the Green Mountain Club felt that there is a great deal that can be improved about Vermont’s policies and procedures related to wind energy development – particularly regarding siting questions.
It is with this in mind that we helped establish and lead a coalition of conservation groups which pushed to establish this very commission as a means of reviewing – and hopefully improving – our policies and procedures.
Concerns:
In general, the Public Service Board process under Section 248 as well as the Agency of Natural Resources permitting processes do not adequately consider all of the criteria by which a project should be judged.
• With Act 250 the state of Vermont sought to protect – among other things – lands above 2,500 feet. Our state felt that these were special places for ecological and cultural reasons. Yet, energy projects are uniquely exempted from the stringent requirements that Act 250 places on any other type of development above 2,500 feet. This must largely be because Section 248 did not envision site-dependent, industrial-scale energy projects being built above 2,500 feet. This loophole should be filled.
• Section 248 does not allow for the consideration of the cumulative impacts of multiple projects. If we as a state are to adequately plan our energy future and manage the impacts of development on our environment and our communities, we must understand that projects do not exist in a bubble. For example, you can currently see the Sheffield and Lowell projects from the Long Trail on Mount Mansfield and the Searsburg towers from the Long Trail/Appalachian Trail in the Glastonbury Wilderness. We should have mechanisms in place that allow regulators to understand that seeing two projects along the 272-mile Long Trail has a different impact than seeing a series of many projects all along the trail. Yet, our policies would consider each of these projects purely on their own merit.
• Section 248 does not sufficiently gauge environmental impacts of projects. The Act 250 criteria that is considered by the Public Service Board are not binding. That is, the board can ignore any environmental impacts if they feel the project is in the public good. This uniquely exempts energy projects from key development regulations.
• The club has conserved more than 25,000 acres in Vermont and transferred most of those into state ownership. These lands should be protected for the purposes in keeping with the reasons for which they were conserved. The previous administration’s moratorium on wind development on ANR lands appropriately prohibited large-scale development on conserved lands while expressly allowing small-scale energy development like the wind tower on Burke. This sound policy should be codified.
• It is worth noting that no state agency is currently expressly tasked with weighing visual impacts of a project. The Department of Public Service has viewed this as an Agency of Natural Resources area but ANR does not specifically have authority to weigh in on aesthetic impacts on behalf of the public unless the project directly impacts other areas of ANR’s statutory authority.
• Lastly, it is worth pointing out that the Public Service Board is not tasked with protecting our environment or our cultural resources and history. The board’s goal as it relates to renewable energy projects is to promote renewable energy. While this has been legislative priority, so too has the Legislature sought special protection of land above 2,500 feet.
Recommendations
• Our policies must consider cumulative impacts of multiple projects.
• We should take some places – such as the conserved lands of the Long Trail – off the table in terms of energy development.
• Just as the Department of Public Service can advocate for the best interest of Vermont ratepayers, some entity in the state of Vermont should be tasked with advocating for the state’s best interest in terms of aesthetic and other cultural impacts.
• An intervener fund should be established in each Section 248 case for both quasi-public entities like the Green Mountain Club and for Vermont citizens who qualify as interveners. This should be funded by the applicant.
• Environmental protections that other developments must go through should be applied to energy projects. Namely energy development above 2,500 feet should not be the only kind of high-elevation development proposal exempted from strict environmental standards. The state chose to give special protections to these lands in 1970 under Act 250 and we should continue that tradition.
