The Agency of Natural Resources agreed to return a portion of the $100,000 permit fee in response to a Supreme Court decision in December.
“We think that the agreement we reached with Swanton Wind represents a fair settlement that is consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision and roughly approximates the work that the Agency has done,” said Matt Chapman, general counsel for the state’s Agency of Natural Resources.
Travis and Ashley Belisle of Swanton partnered with renewable energy developer VERA Renewables to apply for a certificate of public good from the state’s public utility commission for a seven-turbine, 20 MW wind turbine on a ridge behind their home.
“Swanton Wind is pleased to have won at the Supreme Court, and we appreciate that ANR acted to resolve this dispute without further litigation,” said Leslie Cadwell, attorney for developer Swanton Wind. She added that her client had “rightfully” requested an accounting of the agency’s work to review the permit application.
The project faced opposition from some neighbors, the regional planning commission, Green Mountain Power and neighboring towns. The Department of Public Service and other intervenors argued that the developers had not presented sufficient evidence for the Public Utility Commission to determine whether to approve the project.
The commission sided with the intervenors, saying that it could not evaluate the project without a final study on the turbines’ impact to the over-subscribed northern tier of the state’s electrical grid.
“The region of Vermont where this project is proposed to be located experiences transmission capacity issues that can lead to curtailment of existing generation facilities, a situation that could be influenced by the proposed project,” wrote the commissioners in a June 2017 order.
Swanton Wind, LLC withdrew its application in the fall of 2017, citing an unfavorable political climate for wind development. The developer also requested the commission return the $100,000 permit filing fee paid to ANR.
The agency had initially opposed the return of the $100,000 fee, saying that staff had already spent time reviewing the application, according to a court filing. The public utility commissioners approved the withdrawal but said they did not have the authority to direct ANR to return the filing fee.
The developer appealed the the commission’s decision with the Supreme Court last year. The court ruled that the commission determine what portion of the permit fee the developer was entitled to.
The two parties agreed to settle the matter rather than have a contested proceeding before the Public Utility Commission, said Chapman.
Ed. Note — This story was updated Feb. 11 to include comments from Leslie Cadwell.
