Editor’s note: This op-ed is by Lawrence H. Mott, a board member of Montpelier-based Renewable Energy Vermont and principal consultant at SgurrEnergy Inc. a renewable energy consultancy firm.

Opinions on the merits of various generation sources is the sign of our struggle to change. Last week’s New York Times op-ed “The Not So Green Vermont” by Steve Wright, republished on VTDigger.org on Sept. 29, is exactly that: the words of an individual spurred on by a small and vocal group in the small state of Vermont.

This description of disaster is a means to attract attention after not getting their way during a long, detailed and very public process of determining the public good of this generation project under our permitting law: Section 248 (a Certificate of Public Good is required for an electric project).

The findings of this regulatory process, garnered from the diverse parties that participated, the multiple public hearings conducted, the regular dose of media discussion and letters are what represent our state, our people and clearly our goals as described in the recently released (Sept. 11) draft state Comprehensive Energy Plan which calls for significant additions to renewable electric generation, a shift in our heating and transport energy methods, furthering our intense smart grid integration and major investment in efficiency in all sectors. The 63 MW Kingdom Community Wind project in Lowell, Vt., is a part of this effort, which includes an effort to save our Green Mountains from ongoing acid rain from Midwest coal generation (which has killed pine trees and impacted vegetation on the very ridges Mr. Wright highlights).

Vermont is not under attack, Vermont has one of the strictest permitting climates, strongest land use regulations, and multiple active groups ensuring that forests remain connected, streams are not clouded with runoff and habitat preserved. Wind farm permits have been denied in our state, significant changes and mitigation have occurred during the process to obtain an approval, the Department of Natural Resources imposes conditions of the projects, as well as enforces and fines for failure to abide. The wind farm roads are required to be reduced in size once the project is constructed. Mr. Wright’s own town in Craftsbury, which is nearby, has no official position on the project, although he refers to the town as having one.

We have the lowest electric demand of New England, one of the lowest carbon footprints from our significant portions of hydro and nuclear electricity, as well as a leading energy efficiency program and efficiency expertise born here. Vermont is furthering this, and doing it where we can. We have an entrepreneurial spirit for creating and doing the right thing, as well as forward-thinking companies and the key here: progressive electric utilities who are making investments in our energy future.

Green Mountain Power, Washington Electric Co-op, Burlington Electric Department and even the publicly-traded CVPS have all made investments in, purchased long-term power from, and in the case of Green Mountain Power, have developed and are building another wind project: the Kingdom Community Wind project. They are doing this to diversify their portfolios, preparing for our single 39-year-old nuclear plant’s 2012 shut down and, most importantly, to offer what their customers are asking for: local, renewable energy in their back yard (two polls conducted over the past three years show over 80 Percent and 90 percent approval, and one of the polls explicitly asked if you want it in your back yard, conducted via Vermont Dept. Public Service http://cdd.stanford.edu/polls/energy/2008/vermont-results.pdf)

Vermont has wind, solar and biomass resources, and we are working to harness them all, large and small. We have progressive net metering legislation as well as a focus on medium-scale generation via our Standard Offer program. For utility scale wind, we have hundreds of miles of north/south ridges that are exposed to the westerly prevailing winds.
To date, we have one 6 MW wind farm (Searsburg) operating, a 40 MW wind farm coming on line this fall (Sheffield) and a handful in development; therefore, we are behind our nation and our goals to build more of this mature and cost- effective electric source. Even if we eventually build out enough wind for 25 percent of our electric needs, this would require roughly 4 percent of our ridgelines (and important to note is the use of 5 percent of ridgeline would additionally provide over 50 percent of an electric-powered transportation resource (see: http://www.vpirg.org/repowervt), thereby addressing the issue Mr. Wright correctly raises on offsetting transport and heating emissions. All of the above wind farm areas would not include sites our environmental and historic groups have noted to be preserved, and in several areas, the wind farms would help preserve habitat by placing large tracts in productive use. One can witness the bear fur on a Searsburg wind turbine tower door to see how the bears found a scratching post.

The northern forest is not being torn apart by these plans; in fact, even the most zealous wind person would say the state will likely only support about a dozen wind farms and most of these less than 75 MW in parts of the state where wind resource and transmission exist. These farms offer the promise of a significant portion of our small demand, as well as dollars circulating in state. Neighboring states have, if anything, found tourism bolstered by wind farms, and a working landscape enhanced by local generation, local jobs.

I would counter Mr Wright’s perspective, and say the environmental groups have taken a stand and a clear one: An Oct. 10, 2010 joint press release: “The Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), Vermont League of Conservation Voters Education Fund (VLCVEF), Vermont Natural Resources Council (VNRC) and Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG) support the development of wind energy in Vermont. This collective statement of support for wind, and other renewable energy technologies, is based on our deep concern that society has not moved fast or aggressively enough to address the most urgent environmental crisis in human history: climate change.” (entire release: http://www.vnrc.org/article/view/33455/1/4913/)

We all love our Green Mountains and are proud of our efforts in helping green the planet.