Leonard Duffy: Energy alternatives

Editor’s note: This commentary is by Leonard Duffy, of Hinesburg, who is a licensed architect, a former member and chair of both the Hinesburg and Chittenden regional planning commissions, as well as former co-chair of a state guidelines committee on Act 250 Criterion 8, Aesthetics.

Recent statements by proponents and beneficiaries of Vermont’s solar and wind industry would have us believe that the only way to “save the planet” is to destroy the very landscape that we love. It doesn’t have to be that way.

Vermont’s goal of achieving a high percentage of renewable energy is laudable. Our strategic location between Hydro-Quebec and more populous southern New England should make that goal readily achievable at a cost we can afford without destroying our precious agrarian landscape. It only takes responsible political leadership.

Paying a pittance to some poor farmer while avoiding any significant regulatory review is far more attractive to Wall Street investors than tackling the structural and permitting hurdles of working in an already developed area.


Unfortunately, our present leaders appear to have been deluded by a well-funded lobbying effort preaching that we must permanently turn large portions of our world-renowned landscape into wind factories and so-called “solar farms”; energy sources which can only be justified by massive subsidies paid by hard-working Vermonters to out-of-state investors. The proponents’ technique is to call anyone interested in protecting the landscape “short-sighted naysayers and deniers,” and now they even sue opponents for speaking up against their rampant destruction. Meanwhile, they plan to consume another 10,000 more acres and miles of ridgelines in the near future.

Remember? Only a decade ago the entire state of Vermont was designated “endangered” by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. VNRC, now a champion of industrial-solar-and-wind-everywhere, equated all development in Vermont to the Valdez oil spill for fundraising purposes. Vermonters have often sacrificed significant economic opportunities to protect our bucolic landscape from excessive development.

The present energy policy has already had devastating effects on our landscape, though producing a miniscule amount of power. It certainly has long-term impact on Vermont’s essential tourism industry, as well as our quality of life. Many residents have been negatively impacted, and the eyesores will only get far worse as nature takes its toll.

VTDigger is underwritten by:

It doesn’t have to be that way. In addition to the much more sustainable and reliable 24/7 renewable energy source at our northern doorstep, we have sufficient acres of existing parking lots, landfills, industrial parks and rooftops for the most extensive solar energy projections. The only reason these areas are not being used is that is is far cheaper for the industry to exploit open farm and forest land. Paying a pittance to some poor farmer while avoiding any significant regulatory review is far more attractive to Wall Street investors than tackling the structural and permitting hurdles of working in an already developed area.

Screening and setbacks won’t solve the problem. Skewing the present subsidies and incentives toward urban locations might help. At the very least, all rural renewable energy projects should be subject to the same level of scrutiny, and potential denial, given other industrial projects through Act 250 and local land use controls. Furthermore, the full impact of subsidizing out-of-state financiers to destroy our landscape and our tourist industry must be weighed against the cost of purchasing renewable power from Hydro-Quebec. There is no reason to consume another single acre of Vermont farmland or ridgeline until those steps are taken.


About Commentaries publishes 12 to 18 commentaries a week from a broad range of community sources. All commentaries must include the author’s first and last name, town of residence and a brief biography, including affiliations with political parties, lobbying or special interest groups. Authors are limited to one commentary published per month from February through May; the rest of the year, the limit is two per month, space permitting. The minimum length is 400 words, and the maximum is 850 words. We require commenters to cite sources for quotations and on a case-by-case basis we ask writers to back up assertions. We do not have the resources to fact check commentaries and reserve the right to reject opinions for matters of taste and inaccuracy. We do not publish commentaries that are endorsements of political candidates. Commentaries are voices from the community and do not represent VTDigger in any way. Please send your commentary to Tom Kearney, [email protected]

Email: [email protected]

Send us your thoughts

VTDigger is now accepting letters to the editor. For information about our guidelines, and access to the letter form, please click here.


Recent Stories

Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "Leonard Duffy: Energy alternatives"