DERBY — The Vermont utility building a 21-turbine wind power project on Lowell Mountain is facing a potential $11 million cost increase because of transmission upgrades requested by the operators of the New England electric grid.

Green Mountain Power estimates the project will cost about $150 million. But the price may jump by about 7 percent because of a recent decision by ISO-New England, which operates the regional grid.

ISO concluded that the utility will need to invest in a new voltage control system to balance the impact of electricity flowing into the grid.

Utility spokeswoman Dorothy Schnure said it doesn’t agree with ISO’s conclusion. She tells Vermont Public Radio Green Mountain Power is still talking with them about whether there are less expensive alternatives.

Editor’s note: This op-ed is by Lukas B. Snelling, the executive director of Energize Vermont, a statewide responsible renewable energy organization based in Rutland County.

Whether we want to admit it or not, renewable energy in Vermont has a predicament. The current administration, renewable energy cheerleaders, and profit-focused developers would love to ignore it, but the fact is large-scale renewable energy development is creating a tension in our communities that can’t be swept under the rug. Take a look at the events of the last couple of weeks.

We’ve seen our Canadian neighbors threaten to cut off water over a proposed wind project in Derby. Dozens of citizens turned out in Newark for heated questioning of the developers looking to build a wind project twice as big as the one proposed for Lowell. In Lowell the proposed turbines are so large they may soon spin across the nearest property line. In Charlotte neighbors of a solar project have a list of unresolved concerns. In North Springfield there’s strong outspoken opposition to a proposed biomass plant over health concerns, especially in children. All told, hardly a county in Vermont has been spared controversy and conflict over large-scale renewable energy development in the last year.

The desire to build industrial-scale renewable energy developments in Vermont, “as fast as we know how,” as the governor says, is at odds with how our communities evaluate development, respect their natural resources and protect their citizens. If we are going to be successful in this transition we must seek to ease the tension.

One way to ease the tension would be to develop projects in a more collaborative way. Currently developers arrive before select boards with project plans in hand, starting their sales job before hearing much community input on the size, scale or location of a potential project. With no official mechanism for community input citizens often feel slighted at the outset. Bringing the two parties together before anything is set in stone, in a moderated format, may enable better results for both sides.

Developers must also do more to demonstrate respect for the communities where they seek to build projects. If they feel projects won’t produce noise, lower property values or otherwise impact project neighbors, they need to offer those guarantees in writing to the satisfaction of their new neighbors. This is a fair and reasonable approach because if the developer is right, they will never have to deal with the repercussions, and if they are wrong, the neighbors are provided with some protection.

Lastly, we should look to decrease tension-filled situations by enabling and incentivizing the right projects in the right places. Our current subsidies and incentives create a “gold rush” approach towards large-scale renewable development, funding projects regardless of their impacts on natural resources or communities. Instead we need to incentivize the least disruptive projects and judge the worthiness of larger projects based on environmental impact. This makes good sense when you consider that technologies like residential solar can be installed with minimal impact, but might need a little extra help for the average homeowner to buy in.

If we continue our current course we will be left with divided communities and inappropriate development marring our state. With climate change an ever-growing concern we only have one shot to do this right. Let’s shift from a debate to a discussion, and give our people, natural resources and communities the seat at the table they deserve.

NRG Systems in Hinesburg laid off 18 employees Wednesday in response to what it said was “ongoing uncertainty and volatility” in the global wind industry. The layoffs were the first in the company’s 30-year history, reducing its work force to 100 employees.

“It is with great sadness that I said goodbye to 18 skilled and dedicated employees today,” President and Chief Executive Officer Jan Blittersdorf said in a statement Wednesday. “As the owner and CEO of NRG Systems, this is the last thing I had ever hoped to do. It was a deeply unfortunate, though necessary act to preserve our future in the face of a deeply unstable wind energy industry.”

In the statement, NRG said the wind industry is being hampered by external sources, including the “looming expiration” of the Production Tax Credit for wind, which expires at the end of the year unless Congress acts to renew it.

Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., argued for the extension of the tax credit through 2016 before the House Ways and Means Committee in late April. Welch said that every day Congress allows the extension of the credit to “hang in limbo” costs the country investments in renewable energy, along with “our place in the competitive global market and the creation of new green jobs.”

Welch cited the work of NRG in his testimony, saying the company has reported a 50 percent drop in U.S. orders because of the uncertainty facing the tax credit. NRG makes wind measurement systems for electric utilities, wind farm developers, research institutes and others.

The layoffs at NRG follow recent cuts in company benefits, travel and other expenses. The 18 employees who were let go are eligible for severance pay, unemployment benefits and NRG’s employee assistance program.

Company officials declined to comment on the layoffs beyond the prepared statement.

Welch told the Free Press in an email Wednesday that he believed NRG would weather the current downturn in business.

“NRG is a great company built by visionary leaders and smart, hard-working employees,” he said. “While this is a setback for NRG, I am confident it will persevere.”

Contact Dan D’Ambrosio at 660-1841 or ddambrosio@burlingtonfreepress.com. Follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/bfp_biz.

A proposal to erect two large wind turbines in Derby Line, on two different farms, is running into harsh resistance-especially from Canadians who say the turbines are too close to their properties.

The project got a thumbs-down from the Derby select board on May 15. But the developer says he wants the Public Service Board to have the final say, and so do the two landowners who want the turbines.

Bryan Davis has been a dairy farmer in Derby Line for more than 35 years, and has always been fascinated by wind power. In fact there is already a small turbine atop a windy hill above his 160-cow barn. Now Davis wants to let Encore Redevelopment, a company based in Burlington, put up a much larger turbine to increase power supply to his farm and to the surrounding towns.

“We’ve done a lot of research on these large turbines and we’re very comfortable with everything that we’ve read and learned. We have no concerns whatsoever,” Davis says.

But others-especially Canadians-do have concerns, especially about another turbine going up near the Davis farm, only about 325 feet from the nearest Canadian property. Stanstead Mayor Phillipe Dutil lists a slew of objections to both turbines.

“First of all in the winter time, because we know with the change of weather, the freezing rain and everything, ice forms on that, and the ice, when it comes off, could hit the houses, hit the road,” Dutil warns.

The Mayor also worries about flickering – the phenomenon caused when the moving blades cast constantly moving shadows on the ground. And opponents are stoking fears about the effects of blasting on local wells, and the potential for bird kill by the blades.

Jean-Francois Nadeau is a Canadian journalist who began building a second home only about 700 feet from the proposed wind site. He says the project was a bad surprise. He’s led the opposition, which recently staged a well-publicized rally.

Nadeau thinks Encore should have informed Canadian abutters before holding public hearings in Derby.

“Because for American citizens it seems quite nice from this side because you are considering that up north over the border there’s only grizzly bears, but that’s not true, there’s a village there, there’s people living there, there’s families, there’s children, so you don’t want to hurt them, that’s the main issue here. We’re not against windmills, just put them on a safer place, that’s it,” Nadeau says.

The recent Derby select board vote against the project was close, and it does not deter the developer, Chad Farrell, from seeking approval from Vermont’s Public Service Board.

“It’s an extremely high bar that we need to meet to get a certificate of public good.” he says.

Farrell says the scale of this project is smaller than giant wind farms elsewhere in the state, and the power will be distributed locally, not to a regional grid. He says wind projects like these help farmers hang onto their land in the face of fluctuating milk prices. And he claims the lights and noise will not be much more disturbing than the sounds from working dairy farms and the high security lighting from a nearby border patrol checkpoint.

“We have two projects that make a lot of sense and will not result an any undue adverse impacts to human health or the environment,” Farrell says.

His partner, farmer Bryan Davis, says he will welcome a monthly lease payment, though he will not disclose the amount. Surrounding U.S. towns would also get payments.

For Davis, as for other supporters, wind is an environmentally friendly alternative to fossil fuels. But it’s still not clear which way the wind will blow at the Public Service Board. The scheduling is temporarily on hold, and Stanstead will be allowed to make its case against the project before the board.

STANSTEAD, Quebec — The winds blowing through Canada’s broad St. Lawrence Valley and across Vermont’s hilltops are stirring up an international tempest over which country’s laws should govern how those breezes are harnessed for electricity.

Some residents of the Quebec town of Stanstead are upset about plans in Vermont to erect just south of the border two industrial-size wind turbines — one of which would be about 1,000 feet from a few Canadian and Vermont homes.

Quebec requires wind turbines to be at least 1,640 feet from homes, and the Canadian homeowners are demanding those rules be followed. But in Vermont, the allowable distance is determined by the sound of the spinning blades, and the project’s developer says the turbines would meet those requirements.

The plan has yet to win approval from Vermont regulators. But the dispute has gotten so rancorous that the mayor of Stanstead threatened to cut off water to some homes on the American side. The issue has even come up on the floor of Canada’s Parliament.

“You know, there really is no precedent to follow here,” said Chad Farrell of Encore Redevelopment, the Burlington, Vt., company working with two dairy farmers to build the 425-foot windmills, each of which would be capable of producing enough electricity for about 900 homes.

Stanstead’s Lynda Hartley lives on a horse farm about 3,700 feet from the turbine site, well beyond the Quebec setback distance, but is leading the opposition in the community. She said her 8-year-old autistic son is hypersensitive to noise.

“This is going to be stopped,” she said. “I am not going to allow this to happen. This is crazy.”

The Vermont farmers are counting on the money they would be paid for hosting the towers as a steady source of income in an era of up-and-down milk prices.

One of them, Bryan Davis, said his neighbors in Derby Line who live close by are not complaining. The opposition, he said, is “scaring people with these tactics.”

It is the other proposed turbine in Derby Line that has generated most of the opposition. Seven homes in Quebec would be less than 1,640 feet from it. The owners of the farm on which it would be erected did not return calls for comment.

Julie Fauteux lives with her husband and two young children in Quebec, about 1,500 feet from where that second turbine would be. In front of her house is a sign in French that translates as “health and quality of life,” with an image of a turbine inside a circle with a slash through it.

“There is not going to be any quality of life with the sound of this,” Fauteux said. She added: “They don’t consider the closeness of our house. In the United States there’s no law about how close you can put one, but in Canada there is.”

The farming villages of Stanstead, population 3,000, and its American twin, Derby Line, a section of the broader town of Derby, which has about 4,600 people, are practically one community, even though many people in Stanstead speak French as their first language and the international boundary cuts through yards and even houses. It was only after security was tightened following 9/11 that residents had to start reporting at border stations before visiting friends or relatives on the other side.

The breeze in Derby Line isn’t as strong as it is on the mountaintops where most Vermont wind projects are situated, but it is steadier, making the village ideal for generating power, Farrell said. The whooshing of the turbines would meet Vermont’s 45-decibel noise limit, he said.

Supporters say the turbines would produce green energy, create jobs during construction and provide income to the farmers. Opponents say wind power harms the environment, wouldn’t be practical without huge government subsidies, and is an eyesore. The giant spinning blades in Derby Line would be visible for miles on both sides of the border.

Hartley said she and her neighbors did some research on the Internet and found complaints about shadows and glints of light from the turbines, noise and vibration, and electromagnetic radiation.

“It was amazing the different things that we heard and how horrible they were,” she said. “It was things we’d never thought about.”

Farrell said scientific studies have found the health concerns unfounded, and he added that those aren’t even the real reasons for the opposition: “I think what it comes down to is some people just don’t want to look at them.”

Pat Parenteau, an environmental law professor at the Vermont Law School, said there is no law requiring a Vermont developer to follow Quebec rules, but that would be a good practice. It’s a legal concept known as “comity.”

“If the Canadian requirement is reasonable, there’s sort of a diplomatic principle of why not honor it. If the shoe was on the other foot, wouldn’t we want Canada to respect our laws and requirements?” Parenteau said. “That’s soft law. That ain’t hard law. It’s simple respect.”

Stanstead Mayor Philippe Dutil said he hasn’t seen people in his community so worked up about something in Vermont since the early 1980s, when there was talk of building a nuclear waste dump in the state.

“I am there to defend my citizens. If my citizens are worried, I am standing behind them all the way,” Dutil said.

Last month, he threatened to cut off a Vermont neighborhood served by a Stanstead water system. “I said that to catch everybody’s attention. And it did,” Dutil said.

Last week, a member of Parliament who represents the Stanstead area called on the Canadian government to “ensure that my citizens are consulted in the development of this type of project.”

The project is awaiting approval from the Vermont Public Service Board. Farrell had hoped to finish the turbines in time to take advantage of a wind power tax credit that expires at the end of the year, but said he is willing to take extra time to work with the Canadians.

Still, Farrell said moving the turbines farther from the Quebec homes would just put them closer to Vermont houses.

“Every location has its challenges,” he said.

DERBY – Hearings before state regulators on the Derby Line Wind Project have been pushed to late August.

And a decision from the Vermont Public Service Board on whether to issue a certificate of public good would not come until October at the earliest, according to the schedule posted online Wednesday by PSB hearing officer John Cotter.

That means that Encore Redevelopment would not have time to erect the two industrial-size turbines on two Derby farms this year – even if the PSB issues the certificate. The developer could lose federal tax credits if those expire at the end of this year.

And the delay in the hearings would give Derby enough time to hold a special referendum to find out how Derby voters feel about the project before the proceedings really get going.

The divided Derby Select Board did not take up a proposal Monday evening by Selectman Steve Gendreau to call for a referendum by Australian ballot. One of the arguments against it was the lack of time because Encore had asked for hearings in the middle of the summer.

A referendum would have to be warned in advance, taking weeks to prepare ballots for voters who are overseas in the military, for example.

Dairy farmer Bryan Davis said Tuesday that he has been inundated with calls of support from fellow Derby residents. He believes that the project would receive support in a referendum.

Selectmen have said they would like to know what voters think in Derby.

Meanwhile, more people have applied to intervene in the proceedings before the PSB. Cotter added one neighbor, Jeanne Dickinson, to the list of those allowed party status in the hearings as an intervenor.

He indicated he is considering other motions to intervene by adjoining landowners who were notified late by Encore by a letter dated April 25. Anyone notified earlier in the year is not now allowed to apply, he said.

The deadline to file motions to intervene is now Thursday, May 21.

Encore filed its application for a certificate of public good for two 425-foot turbines on Derby farms early this year. Encore officials originally were given a schedule for hearings in May, giving the company a chance to raise the turbines this year.

But the project immediately ran into delays. A storm forced a public meeting to be held a month late. And then Encore’s law firm failed to properly notify all abutting landowners in Derby and Holland who live next to the Grand View Farm near Derby Line owned by Bryan Davis and his family and the Smuggler’s Hill Farm near Holland owned by the Chases.

And Encore didn’t notify Canadian abutters. Cotter ordered Encore to notify them.

The delays in notification, and the announcement by neighbors that they wanted to participate in the process, prompted Encore to seek a new schedule with mid-summer hearings.

The final schedule as ordered by Cotter give those abutting landowners that were notified late time to get involved.

It’s a rolling schedule where a new deadline in the process pops up nearly every week.

Cotter concludes, based on the evidence, that Encore has now properly notified everyone required by Vermont law.

He also criticized Encore for suggesting a deadline for new motions to intervene that would have prevented anyone else from getting involved.

He continues to warn that people involved should consider working together if they have similar interests.

So far, the towns of Holland, Derby and Stanstead plus the village of Derby Line are intervenors.

A group of Derby and Holland residents plus Derby Line resident Mary Jenne, mother of Selectman Karen Jenne, have been granted intervenor status, along with Dickinson.

Cotter has not decided whether he would grant status to a group of Canadian residents.

Cotter noted that some of the intervenors, like the group of Derby and Holland residents, have asked that he hold the deadline open and delay the process further in case anyone else wants to seek to participate.

“Such a suggestion is simply not practicable because the board cannot know when the final motion to intervene has been filed,” Cotter said.

The schedule sets up a pace that is similar to a court hearing process.

In early June, intervenors can question Encore experts in the discovery phase of the quasi-judicial proceedings and Encore can respond, Cotter said.

By July 2, intervenors can pre-file their own testimony, from their own experts, and Encore can question that testimony.

There are several back-and-forth deadlines leading up to the so-called technical hearings during the week of Aug. 27.

Participants file their final arguments called briefs on Sept. 17. Then the final responses are due Oct. 1.

The PSB could rule on the project within weeks or even months after that.

In the more complex case of the 21-turbine Lowell wind project, the PSB issued a certificate of public good in late May 2011, three months after the technical hearings.

PROCTOR — The Vermont Marble Museum owners weren’t the only ones complaining on Wednesday that dramatic hikes in their electric bills were putting them out of business.

Less than a month after Marsha and Martin Hemm announced that they planned to close the museum this fall due to a doubling in the amount they’ve paid since Central Vermont Public Service Corp., took over the town’s power distribution, the utility’s senior vice president spoke before a small gathering of business owners who had witnessed similar rate increases — or worse.

“It’s scary,” said June Wilson, one of the owners of Proctor Marble Company. “Our bill went from $96 a month to $480 for the same amount of kilowatts.”

“I don’t get how you didn’t expect us to be upset and surprised about this,” she added.

Joseph Kraus, senior vice president of engineering, operations and customer service for CVPS, said officials at the utility weren’t thinking about the impact on business rates when they took over the Vermont Marble Power Division last year.

Of the 880 power customers in town, Kraus said all but about 30 were homeowners who, while faced with a 55 percent billing increase under CVPS, won’t see the full impact on their bills until the end of a five-year gradual phase-in process.

The 30 businesses in town were another matter, he said. They saw substantial increases from the bills they received from VMPD — which Kraus said may have had the lowest utility rates in the state because of long-deferred investments in their infrastructure — to the same commercial rates that CVPS applies to its other customers.

Kraus said CVPS estimated the average increase for commercial owners at 45 percent.

The roughly half-dozen businesspeople who met with him at the marble museum Wednesday afternoon scoffed at that estimate.

“I’d really like you to find a commercial customer who will come in here and say their bill only went up 45 percent,” said Brent Wilson, June Wilson’s husband and business partner.

The Wilsons raised most of the complaints during the roughly 90 minute meeting, but there concerns were supported by the others in the room, including Marsha and Martin Hemm, and Franklin’s Restaurant owner Frank Beyette.

Much of the anger in the room was directed at the utility’s “demand charge” which increases the rate for commercial power usage that goes beyond a predetermined allocation.

Kraus said the charging mechanism is designed to encourage businesses to reduce their peak power usages, but the Wilson’s said that for businesses like their own, the extra charge was an unavoidable increase that accounted for about 60 percent of their billing increase.

After the meeting, Marsha Hemm said the Marble Museum also suffered from the demand charge and would continue to be billed at the higher rate every time the facility turned on all its display lighting.

Because of that fact, Hemm said parts of the museum would remain in the dark this year.

The announced closing of the 80-year-old museum triggered the meeting with Kraus who said his presence at the meeting on Wednesday was an indication that the utility cares about helping the historic site and the other small businesses impacted in town.

He didn’t offer a way to turn back the meters. But Kraus did say that he had an alternative bill rate system in mind that could lower electric bills by as much as 30 percent for the museum and other businesses in town.

“There’s a chance it could help manage the load and reduce the amount from what you’re paying today,” he said.

That announcement went a long way toward easing the tension in the room.

But Hemm said a 30 percent decline in rates alone probably wouldn’t be enough to keep the museum open.

To accomplish that feat, she said she has been talking with members of the Vermont Historic Preservation Trust and local nonprofit groups, including the Carving Studio, about converting the for-profit business into a nonprofit museum that would be eligible for grants and other funding to help sustain it.

“We want to keep it open. A lot of people trace their families’ roots in this country to this state, this town and its industry,” Hemm said Monday. “After we announced that it was closing, we realized how much it really does mean to a lot of people.”

You can learn a lot by attending select board meetings in your town. The Pittsford Select Board meeting May 2 was a fascinating example of this. Several people were there to continue to observe and make comments on discussion and decision-making regarding the proposed industrial wind development on Grandpa’s Knob/Pittsford Ridge. Also on the agenda for this meeting was a presentation regarding the proposed removal of the historic Kendric Pond Dam. This presentation was given by Ethan Swift of the Agency of Natural Resources and Roy Schiff, water resource engineer with Malone and McBroom.

The presentation about the proposed removal of this dam was very educational. This is a dam on Sugarwood Brook, which feeds into the Furnace Brook, which is important trout habitat. It is also an historic site for the town of Pittsford, as there is a long history to the dam and the mill that operated at the dam. The dam is in poor condition and has some structural problems, so the proposal has been to remove the dam in a controlled way before a flood destroys the dam and damages areas downstream in the process.

The conversation was preceded by a comment by the town manager regarding when they had first talked about this project and he thought they could just go in there with jack hammers and remove the dam. But he has since learned that plan was very naive. One of the issues with removal of the dam is that there is a huge amount of sediment behind the dam, which if released could damage the trout habitat downstream. Prior to removal of the dam, the town has asked for this in-depth study of the consequences, and ANR is providing guidance as to how this project could be done in the most environmentally responsible way and in a way which will minimize any adverse impacts of the project. The discussion that followed was also very enlightening. A neighbor to this dam was in attendance and was welcomed by the town manager when she made comments and asked questions about how this might affect her, as the dam is “in her back yard.”

My comment to the board, and my commentary here is as follows: First, thank you to the presenters for a fascinating and educational presentation. This is how it should be done. Before embarking on any projects that may impact the environment and the people who live there, careful consideration and detailed study should take place. Even when we undertake a project to restore what was altered by humans, we need to consider all of the consequences. My comment concluded with a question as to why we aren’t commissioning studies and devoting equal critical thought to the wind project.

The Grandpa’s Knob/Pittsford Ridge wind project is in the back yard of the four towns that are slated to “host” this project. This is a project of industrial scale that we have never seen on ridgelines in Vermont. The Agency of Natural Resources has stated in a letter dated April 24, 2012, that the Grandpa’s Knob Wind Project would have “an undue adverse effect on this rare and irreplaceable natural area.” Yet Reunion Power officials are stating that the ANR has not been specific in their objections, that the ANR has not proven that any specific species would be harmed, and Reunion is undertaking its own studies. Why would we place more validity on studies paid for by the corporation with a vested monetary interest than we would place on our own ANR?

There should be no double standards for industrial wind development. If ANR has stated that this project will cause irreparable harm to a wildlife corridor and habitat, that should be end of the conversation. This would be the case for any other residential, recreational or commercial enterprise that is proposed in Vermont. Listen to the ANR. Ridges are not renewable.

WEST RUTLAND — Pam Sokol does not want an industrial wind project in her backyard.

The West Rutland resident spoke out during an informational Select Board meeting with the developers of a 20-turbine wind farm on the Grandpa’s Knob ridgeline Monday night.

“I own 44-acres just under where you are putting the project,” Sokol said to the developer Reunion Power. “Mr. Eisenberg, I don’t want you in my backyard. Please accept that.”

Steve Eisenberg, managing director of Reunion Power, spoke before the Select Board and a packed auditorium at the West Rutland Town Hall, providing basic information about the company’s proposed $100 million wind farm. But the reception from residents was anything but welcoming.

Protesters gathered outside of the West Rutland Town Hall prior to the meeting holding signs that read “Don’t Sell Us Out,” and “No Industrial Wind Mill” while resident and concerned people voiced their disapproval of the project.

A miscommunication between town officials and the developers had the meeting starting a half an hour late, which some residents called “disrespectful.”

Christie Wright of Florence said several weeks ago, town officials asked residents to do their research and get the facts to bring before the developers. She said she is one of the people who “changed her mind” about wind projects.

“These are not efficient,” Wright said. “Would you sacrifice our mountains and life for 19 percent efficient?”

The company with offices in Manchester is proposing a wind farm with up to 20 turbines that would produce at most 50 megawatts of energy. It would be located just south of Grandpa’s Knob to Biddie Knob in the towns of West Rutland, Hubbardton, Castleton and Pittsford. They have partnered with Nordex USA.

The turbines would be 300- to 328-foot towers with three blades between 160 to 188 feet. The project would be interconnected to the VELCO substation in West Rutland.

“In our minds, this is a significant generation facility, but not huge,” Eisenberg said. “It is not clear blasting of the ridgeline.”

Eisenberg told residents they are completing environmental studies, in negotiations with local utilities and should be completing the project layout with turbine, road and transmission line locations “very soon.” He also touched on the process for filing with the Vermont Public Service Board, affects to property value and the company’s preliminary meetings with the Agency of Natural Resources.

“The board has a very rigorous process they go through. The entire process can be at least a year, but can go longer in some cases,” Eisenberg said.

Florence resident Lisa Garcia questioned why they should place more validity in studies done by the company and raised concerns about the position of the state Agency of Natural Resources.

In a recent letter sent by ANR to Josh Brown, a project consultant with TRC Solutions, the agency’s general counsel Jon Groveman said ANR maintains that the ridgeline has “exceptional ecological values” and that an industrial wind farm will result in “an undue adverse effect on the natural environment that cannot be mitigated.”

“The ridgeline is the most sensitive portion of this habitat block and it is unlikely that the roads and turbines can be moved to the margins of the habitat block (off the ridgeline) and still access the wind resource.”

Eisenberg said they do not understand ANR’s ranking system for natural habitat blocks, adding they have not done specific surveys in the area with the exception of bats and that to them it seems the large blocks of private-owned land ranks very high. He said the agency does not have in-depth details of the habitat species on the ridgeline and the company pressed the agency for more information.

“We have done more surveys than ANR. We have been collecting more information that ANR,” said Timothy Vought, senior project development manager with Nordex.

Reunion Power has not made any formal proposals to the hosts towns and hope to file with for a certificate of public good from the service board at the end of the year. They hope to begin construction in 2014.

The next meetings with Reunion Power are on May 21 in Castleton and May 24 in Pittsford.

DERBY — Dairy farmer Bryan Davis and Chad Farrell of Encore Redevelopment have no intention of withdrawing their plans for two industrial-grade wind turbines on two Derby farms.

Both Davis and Farrell said Tuesday that the project called Derby Line Wind is still going ahead, even though there have been significant changes in the schedule and pace of the project.

“We’re going full-steam ahead,” Davis said.

“Yes we are continuing to go forward with the project,” Farrell said.

He still wants to receive a certificate of public good for the turbines this year to raise them next year.

Last week’s select board meeting, when the board considered but did not officially vote to oppose the wind project, has left both Davis and Farrell uncertain about what exactly the board members have decided.

On a motion to support the project, Selectman Laura Dolgin voted in favor, Beula-Jean Shattuck and Karen Jenne voted against it and Steve Gendreau abstained. The motion did not receive enough votes to show a majority action by the board.

Gendreau said he wanted a town-wide vote, but received no support for that idea, given the time it would take to set up a referendum by Australian ballot. Dolgin said she did not support a vote because it would not include residents in Stanstead, Quebec, who are near the wind project.

The board asked its attorney Richard Saudek to find out what Encore Redevelopment intends to do given the shifting opinions in Derby, with the board going from a majority clearly in favor to divided.

Saudek said that the project has been hindered by failures to notify all abutters on schedule and other issues. He speculated that the developer might be preparing to pull the plug on the project or delay the proceedings until next year.

Farrell said he has no intention of doing that.

The proposed schedule offered by Farrell, which puts hearings in mid-summer, is still on the table before the state regulators on the Vermont Public Service Board, he said. The hearing officer for the board has yet to rule on that proposed schedule.

Farrell said the divided vote by the board did not seem like a mandate to oppose the project.

The rumors are flying and many people don’t have their facts, Farrell said.

Davis said he has support in the community. After Monday’s meeting, he said he received many calls from area residents, including people he doesn’t know.

“My phone keeps ringing,” Davis said. “There’s a tremendous lot of support in the community.”

Davis said the same group of opponents is driving the opposition at meetings but the supporters do not attend the meetings.

Davis would like for the select board to call a special vote on the project to see just how many people support it. “I am very, very confident it would go in my favor,” Davis said.

Davis attended the Monday meeting but didn’t speak out. Derby Line resident Chris Blais asked during the meeting if Davis had been approached by other developers.

Davis said that he spoke with three different developers who contacted him over the years because his property is a farm field on a ridgeline where there is a good wind resource.

He has also talked with farmers who live near a large wind project in upstate New York. He said they have few complaints and their cows graze beneath the turbines without problems.

Farrell did not attend Monday’s meeting after consulting with Davis during the day. Davis said that Farrell’s presence would prompt more complaints.

Saudek said this project is different from others that have been approved by the Public Service Board in that there are only two turbines which would provide a much smaller taxable income for the host town compared to the Sheffield and Lowell projects.

“This is a pretty unusual case,” he told the board Monday.

“As wind developments go, it’s very small,” he said. “On the other hand, the towers are just as large.”

The wind turbines would generate power at a premium rate because it is a small project under the state’s sustainable renewable energy program, Saudek said.

Saudek warned the select board that almost all wind projects have been approved. “The PSB has been extremely receptive to wind power,” he said.

The problem that the developer faces in Derby is that there is little incentive for the town to support the project because there is no big tax bonanza like the $500,000 payments in Lowell and Sheffield, he said.

Another difference here is that Derby did not put the question on the town meeting ballot to get voter response, unlike in Lowell and Sheffield. Selectmen on Monday lamented that.

Saudek indicated that it might be too late in the process, if the proceedings go forward this summer, for a vote.

But he said it is clear that more and more people are opposing industrial wind projects in general.

“Sentiment has turned against these machines much more than it used to be. What’s going on in Lowell … influences the way people view these things.”

The PSB seldom opposes the wind projects, he said. But on the other hand, the PSB seldom approves a project that is opposed by the host community, he said.

DERBY — Green Mountain Power officials will coordinate their plans to truck Lowell Mountain turbine sections through Derby Center with local fire and school officials. Trucking begins in July.

GMP officials told the Derby Select Board Monday that the company wants to ship the parts by rail to Island Pond and then truck them through Charleston and Derby on Route 105 to Interstate 91 and then to Route 58 from the Orleans exit in Barton.

Four-to-six loads a day would roll through the towns to Lowell, for a total of 126 loads, GMP spokesman Dave Coriell and Lowell wind project manager Charles Pughe said.

The loads are expected to begin the week of July 16 and finish by mid-September.

Each town would receive details the night before about the next day’s planned deliveries. “They are pretty strict in Vermont,” Coriell said.

Selectman Beula-Jean Shattuck asked GMP to coordinate everything with the local schools to avoid having buses and trucks on the streets at the same time.

Derby Zoning Administrator Bob Kelley said fire chief Craig Ellam wants to know when the large truck loads would roll through town so he could plan alternate routes in case of fire.

Coriell and Pughe said they would contact both Ellam and the schools. Each town has particular traffic needs, they said. For example, Barton wants to avoid shipments during end of shift at the Ethan Allen plant in Orleans.

GMP officials have met with Island Pond, Charleston and Barton select boards.

The longest of the loads would be the blades at 179 feet, they said. Those would be trucked through using a rig with a driveable rear axle.

A similar operation shipped loads to the Sheffield wind project through Lyndonville and Barton village without problems.

GMP is hiring a trucking firm that checked the route and confirmed that the loads could make the turns in Derby Center and at the on-ramp to reach I-91, which is considered the tightest turn on the route.

Coriell and Pughe talked about the truck route during a meeting dominated by another wind project, two turbines proposed for Derby farm fields.

The truck route has the approval of the Vermont Department of Motor Vehicles, they said. They have asked state regulators on the Vermont Public Service Board to approve the new route.

The weight of the loads are spread out over multiple-axles to reduce the impact on roads.

GMP had originally intended to truck the loads on I-91 from out-of-state, but opted for a rail route that cuts down on traffic on state roads.

The loads are restricted to daytime during the work week and cannot go on weekends or state holidays. The trucks cannot travel during bad weather. The trucks would either not go out in bad weather or pull off on the interstate to await a passing storm, Coriell and Pughe said. The drivers would not stop on the smaller roads.

Selectman Karen Jenne asked for a copy of the truck company’s insurance and asked the GMP officials to also meet with the village of Derby Center trustees.

The village has water and sewer lines under the road, she said.

Pughe said GMP would be responsible to repair any road that is damaged or affected by the loads.

DERBY- Derby Town’s attorney Richard Saudek attended the select board meeting Monday evening to discuss where the town stands on the Derby Line Wind project. The meeting was delayed while the board waited for Saudek to show up. The board spent the time handling other matters.

Approximately 75 people, including the United States and Canadian media, Stanstead residents and town council members, and Stanstead Mayor Philippe Dutil crowded into the meeting room with some standing in the halls trying to hear the discussion.

Board chairman Brian Smith did not want to begin discussions about the proposed project until the attorney arrived, and wanted to go into executive session with the attorney to discuss if the town should vote on the project or not. But Smith was met with objections from the press regarding what can be discussed behind closed doors.

Smith walked over to Saudek as he entered and informed Saudek of the objection to executive session. Saudek stated the discussions could take place in an open meeting, and they did.

Saudek wants to try to “smoke out” the developer, Encore Redevelopment, whom Saudek has had trouble reaching, by going through the Public Service Board (PSB), to determine if Encore has slowed down the project or is moving forward at the same pace.

The Town of Derby has yet to take an official stand, something Saudek said is unusual. However, Saudek said it would be premature to vote at the meeting if the developer is in fact pulling back.

Select board member Karen Jenne said that the town needed to vote, adding that there have been many problems with the project and threats of lawsuits against the town if the project were to be supported.

Jenne made a motion to support the development, even though she is opposed to it, to put the matter before the board for a vote. Select board member Laura Dolgin said yes. Select board members Karen Jenne and Beula-Jean Shattuck voted no. Steve Gendreau abstained.

Later, Gendreau made a motion to hold a town-wide election to see how the majority of residents feels, however the motion did not receive a second.

Derby Line is officially opposed to the project, and Stanstead, Que., is opposed as well.

Discussion at the meeting centered on town strategy and exploring scenarios regarding the project.

Saudek said that even though the final decision on the project is up to the PSB, the board doesn’t like to ”trump” towns. However, the PSB could approve the project if it determines the project meets all criteria, Saudek noted. The PSB has a track record of approving wind projects, Saudek also pointed out.

Which way the PSB would go if the host town opposes the project is difficult to predict, Saudek added, but he warned that if the town opposes the project, the town would need to build a serious case if the developer does not withdraw the application.

Saudek also explained that if the Derby Select Board opposes the project, the board takes away all power for Saudek to negotiate with the developer. It was noted by a few in the audience that if the project is built, the developer would still have to pay property taxes.

Saudek warned that if the town doesn’t take a stand, the developer can view that as the town dealing itself out. “I’m not sure I would advise not taking a position,” he said.

Feelings are running high on both sides, Saudek said, calling the situation unstable. He said it may be time to reflect.

Saudek noted that other towns take a stand, and are more “confident.”

Audience participation was limited but opponents raised issues such as credibility with the developer, potential health effects and property values, while proponents talked about supporting farmers.

The developer failed to notify several abutting land owners, and the developer’s attorney wrote a letter of apology for the lack of notification.

“I’ve never seen anything like this. It’s absurd,” Saudek stated, referring to the lack of notification.

Saudek also questioned whether the project actually qualifies for the state’s SPEED program as the developer says.

Many complained that the project is for the financial gain of a few but at the expense of nearby neighbors.

“Why is making money a crime?” Brian Smith questioned. Smith supports the project, often referencing private property rights. But he says he feels health issues are important.

Saudek said he will keep the select board informed.

Encore Redevelopment wants to construct two turbines, on two farms in Derby line. Each turbine would be more than 420 feet tall at the tip of the blade.

Green Mountain Power’s Lowell wind project is facing a potential $11 million cost increase because of transmission upgrades requested by the operators of the New England electric grid.

On the Lowell ridgeline, heavy equipment has cut a rugged road needed to haul the cranes and trucks that will deliver 21 turbines this summer.

GMP spokesman David Coriell says the turbines will be producing power by the end of the year.

“We are right on schedule,” he said. “Fortunately the mild winter helped us really get ahead of some of the excavation work that we otherwise would have been a little slower on.”

GMP estimates the project will cost about $150 million. But the price may jump by about 7 percent because of a recent decision by ISO-New England, which operates the regional grid.

ISO studied the impact of the Lowell project on the transmission network and concluded that GMP will need to invest in a new voltage control system. The expensive component is called a “dynamic reactive device” and it’s designed to balance the impact of that much electricity flowing into the grid.

GMP spokeswoman Dorothy Schnure said the utility doesn’t agree with ISO New England’s conclusion. “We’re still talking with them about whether there’s some less expensive alternatives that would still solve the issue,” she said.

“They’ve decided under certain circumstances if the system is operating in a very specific way that voltage could be impacted,” Schnure added. “What we’re doing is we’re still looking at the entire system and finding if there’s another, less expensive way to deal with the scenario that they’ve identified.”

Lawyer Jared Margolis represented the towns of Albany and Craftsbury as GMP sought approval for the wind project before the Public Service Board. Margolis said ratepayers will ultimately have to pay for any additional cost.

“My clients, the towns of Craftsbury and Albany, were concerned about that because they’re ratepayers and this is going to increase their bills and it wasn’t considered by the board,” he said. “This project is already very expensive… and this is only going to increase those costs to the consumers.”

But GMP says even with the additional $11 million the Lowell project will still produce low cost renewable electricity.

HOLYOKE, Mass. (AP) – The operator of New England’s electric grid says the falling price of natural gas has helped push down the average price of wholesale electricity.

ISO-New England said in its annual report Tuesday the average price of wholesale electric energy fell 6% in the region last year. It said decreased demand and more hydroelectricity production also were factors.

Falling wholesale prices don’t necessarily translate into exactly the same drop in retail price.

ISO said there was a 4.5% drop natural gas prices in 2011 from the previous year. That had a broad effect because natural gas generates more than half of the region’s electricity. Electricity demand also fell 0.7%.

The reduced demand was due to milder weather last year, the weak economic recovery and improved conservation and efficiency.

PLAINFIELD — Representatives from Goddard College and its neighbors will have the opportunity to restate their cases for or against permitting a wood-chip heating facility for the Plainfield campus.

The state’s environmental court in Berlin has granted a motion filed by Goddard’s lawyer to hear the case de novo, meaning any information collected by the Plainfield Development Review Board in making its decision to grant a conditional use permit for the facility will be thrown out and must be resubmitted to the court.

Opponents of the facility, which is planned to have a 35-foot-tall exhaust stack, say they are happy about the decision because it will mean a fresh opportunity to ask questions about the placement of the facility and possible health concerns as a result of it.

The group of homeowners near the proposed site of the facility filed the appeal in January.

“Goddard was planning it for several years and never mentioned it to neighbors until it was a done deal,” said Rhea Wilson, who lives across Route 214 from where the facility is proposed to be placed.

The wood-chip boilers would replace 22 oil burners, according to Faith Brown, Goddard College’s chief finance and administration officer. Brown declined to comment about the facility Monday. “We are in a legal case, and I can’t make any comment,” said Brown.

In a decision filed April 26, Judge Thomas Walsh said the town has not met the statutory requirements to have an “on-the-record” review. The court can review appeals of decisions made by towns that have “on-the-record” review without hearing all new evidence.

Walsh went on to say that the Select Board resolution that created the Development Review Board in March 2010, although the intention was to create an “on-the-record” review, did not go far enough. The resolution states “all meetings shall be ‘on the record’ and open to the public.”

“This provision appears to be an attempt to provide that appeals from the DRB will be on the record,” wrote Walsh in his decision. “It does not explicitly address appeals, however; in fact, it refers only to the DRB meetings themselves. The provision is therefore insufficient to satisfy the first requirement.”

The other requirements, such as specifying the types of proceedings that are “on the record,” and applying the Municipal Administrative Procedure Act to the DRB proceedings, were not met, wrote Walsh.

In a letter to the environmental court in March, before the decision was handed down, Janice Walrafen, chairwoman of the Plainfield review board, wrote that Plainfield is an “on-the-record” town and was in accordance with state laws.

Dave Strong, chairman of the Plainfield Select Board, said the town and the DRB will have to decide whether to revise the provision that deals with the DRB to make the town “on the record.”

“I think we are going to meet with the DRB and talk about what it means to be an on-the-record town and see what we would need to do,” said Strong.

The decision means any future appeals of DRB decisions will go directly to environmental court, said Strong, unless the town revises the provision. He added that the ruling should not affect any recent decisions by the DRB.

Wilson, who has been handling much of the court actions for the opponents on her own, said that if the court moves forward with a de novo hearing for the appeal, it is likely they will have to hire a lawyer.

“The group hasn’t decided on what they want to do,” said Wilson.

Wilson said she is more concerned about another motion filed by Goddard’s lawyer, Brian Dunkiel, to dismiss the appeal, saying the opponents do not have a right to challenge the permit. The motion to dismiss has not yet been decided on by the environmental court judge, said Wilson.

Goddard College has continued to move forward with getting permits for the $2 million project despite the appeal. The college submitted Act 250 environmental permits to Plainfield last month.

The college conducted a study to see whether there were any other places on campus to build the facility but would not share the results of the study with the opponents, town officials or the media.

Brown hosted several community forums about the facility on behalf of the college. But previously Brown said that despite concerns the intention was to move forward with the project as quickly as possible.

Opponents and representatives from Goddard met with the Select Board on Monday night to discuss the appeal.

MILTON, Vt. -

It’s being touted as a locally-owned, locally-financed project that is providing jobs for Vermonters in the renewable energy industry, but some local residents say the Georgia Mountain Wind Project is a blight on the landscape that will threaten local wildlife.

Heavy equipment is clearing trees and widening the access road to make way for the Georgia Mountain Community Wind project. A four turbine, 10 megawatt project which will provide power directly to Burlington Electric Department — enough to power 42 hundred homes.

“The access to the site is going to be from the Milton side — a private road up to the site where two of the towers will be in Milton. Two will be in Georgia,” said Carrie Johnson, Georgia’s Town Administrator.

Johnson says the town has been split over the project — some for, some against.

“I’ve been against it for some time,” said Reggie Johnson, who says he was raised on this land on Georgia Mountain. He is concerned about the impact the four turbines will have on the landscape and on wildlife. “Not that I am against wind turbine power, but up on Georgia Mountain — yes — because it’s quite scenic and it is right in the way of a lot of birds going back and forth,” he said.

Two other opponents to the project recently emailed the Public Service Board, concerned that construction had begun before the PSB gave approval for the project, and that neighbors were not properly informed. The town got a letter from their lawyers Monday.

“It appears they have all their permits necessary to proceed to construction,” Carrie Johnson said.

Martha Staskus is overseeing the wind project and says the company did not have to notify neighbors that construction was about to start. But Carrie Johnson says Georgia Mountain Community Wind is required to post construction updates. “They have to post some things on our notice board just to alert people that this project is moving forward, so they are not shocked when they see trees coming down the road being constructed — which is in Milton of course, but I think once the initial site work is done it will go fairly quickly,” she said.

There is also a message board at the project site entrance. A neighbor told WCAX-TV that the construction update, which was several pages thick, was ripped down, presumably by a project opponent.

Staskus says the 27 million dollar project should be complete by the end of the year, which will make it eligible for section 1603 grants from the federal government which could be in the millions of dollars.

A hotline has been set up for updates on the Georgia Mountain Wind project: (802) 242-1476

I remember the great feeling of finally paying off our mortgage. It went way beyond the obvious financial benefit. There’s a sense of freedom and security. If you fall on hard times, no one can take your house away. That’s why it was shocking to realize that everything we had worked for could be taken away by a well financed developer. What’s more, the laws of the state of Vermont would fully support it.

There are no minimum distances from houses for industrial wind projects. The project currently proposed for Rutland County consists of 15 to 20 490-foot tall turbines over a 6-mile stretch. There are 440 structures within a 2-mile radius. Without a doubt, some of these property owners will find they are no longer able to live in their homes if these turbines are constructed.

The health effects of living too close to a wind turbine are profound. The low frequency sound can penetrate a house, disrupting sleep. Some people suffer from vertigo, nausea, headaches, visual blurring, and ringing in the ears. People find they can no longer work in their gardens; the peace and serenity is gone. The constant noise is likened to a jet coming in for a landing, but it never lands.

The developers of this project have made claims that property values don’t go down. This defies logic. If you were in the market for a house, would you buy a house one mile from a giant industrial turbine, or would you buy the equivalent house in a peaceful countryside?

Be aware, developers have millions of reasons to lie. There’s millions of dollars to be made, and most of it is your tax dollars which subsidize these projects. Don’t let Rutland County fall victim to these smooth-talking salesmen.

JOHN GEERY

Clarendon

DERBY — The Derby Select Board Monday evening decided to send its attorney on a fishing expedition “to smoke out” the Derby Line Wind Project developer and see if he is about to withdraw or delay the project.

Attorney Richard Saudek also said that he would alert state regulators on the Vermont Public Service Board that the town is divided and the board is increasingly opposed to the project.

“They’ve got to come to grips with it,” he said about the developer.

The board, pressured by opponents, shows little support for the project. In a motion for support of the project presented by Selectman Karen Jenne, Laura Dolgin voted in favor, Jenne and Beula-Jean Shattuck opposed and Steve Gendreau abstained.

Gendreau said he wanted a town-wide vote. But when he presented that motion, it died without a second. He has said that he now opposes the vote. He said that the town should have had a vote at town meeting.

Saudek, in his first face-to-face meeting with the board, outlined strategy in open session before a TV camera crew from Quebec, reporters from both countries and an overflow international audience of more than 60 people.

He said he would explain to the PSB and to Chad Farrell of Encore Redevelopment what he had seen Monday evening — that the town is in an uproar and that the board is likely to vote to oppose it at some point.

He urged the board not to vote no right now, despite pressure to do so. The select board, he said, would give up leverage in negotiations over contracts and funding or in other ways.

“Let’s say we left the whole thing in limbo. I go to the developer and the PSB and I would say ‘this developer has really got this town going,’” he said.

“This project has not really been sold,” Saudek said.

He added he would say: “You don’t really want to know what this town has to say right now.”

Saudek also said that the evidence that could be gathered from the Sheffield project and how residents are reacting to it would be a good argument to bring to the PSB in hearings over noise impacts.

If he were advising the developers, he would tell them that they should have a pretty good reason for going ahead with this.

Farrell has said that they want to slow down the proceedings so people have more time. They failed to notify all abutting landowners, prompting the PSB hearing officer to throw out the hearing schedule. A new one has not been issued.

“Hearing you people, I can understand the guy is having second thoughts,” Saudek said.

He warned that the developer does not have to withdraw the project application just because a host town votes against it.

But all the projects approved by the PSB had host town support, he noted.

He also questioned whether the project would qualify for premium rates under the small-renewable program set up by the state.

There is “real instability” in the proceedings right now, he said.

“I’ve never seen any case like it,” he said, referring to the failure to notify abutters.

“It’s absurd.”

Saudek will alert the board if he needs a special meeting to report back on developments.

• Donate Online
• Donate via Check in the Mail

Over the last week things have gone thoroughly international for the Derby wind project. On Sunday opponents from both sides of the border gathered to protest the project. The event received coverage in both the US and Canada. The project seems to be gaining opponents, including a Quebec renewable energy group that denounced the turbines for being too close to neighboring homes. On Wednesday the PSB decided that the town of Stanstead, Quebeccould participate in the Section 248 process. A Selectman in Derby is trying to get the town to officially vote against the project with hopes that will send a strong enough message to the developer that they will withdraw the project.

The Georgia Mountain wind project also made news this week when it was announced that local renewable energy proponent David Blittersdorf acquired a share of the project and commenced construction. The Newport Daily Expressreported on the proposed Seneca Mountain Wind project in Brighton, Newark, and Ferdinand. Just for reference, at right is a comparison between the size of turbines typical of recent Vermont proposals and other common buildings around Rutland County.

Some mixed news for solar this week. The New York Times ran a great article examining how inexpensive solar is becoming, and how innovative financial models are making it more and more accessible. Here the Rutland Board of Alderman couldn’t make a decision on whether to approve a solar project on town property and there appeared to be some legal strife over the contract for another project in Rutland Town. In hydro news, supporters were talking up a bill that would simplify the permitting process for new hydro facilities in Vermont with hopes the Governor would sign it shortly.

The Lowell Mountain Occupiers are hosting an event on Friday the 18th called the “WinDig 2.” The event will include presenters talking about the impacts of utility-scale wind on ridgelines and include a virtual tour of the proposed Lowell Mountain Wind project. You should consider attending, and all the details are here.

Thank you for supporting Energize Vermont and have a great weekend,

Lukas B. Snelling
802-778-0660
luke@energizevermont.org

Newport Daily Express: Enter the Canadians

May 11, 2012 02:04 pm | alina

Reposted from Newport Daily Express. DERBY, VT/STANSTEAD, QUE. – Stanstead can now officially intervene on the proposed Derby Line Wind project, according to an order by the Vermont Public Service Board (PSB) issued May 9. Stanstead residents and town officials are in an uproar over the proposed project and have held rallies against it. Stanstead …

comments | read more

    

Rutland Herald: Rutland Town solar project company loses suit against school

May 11, 2012 02:01 pm | alina

Reposted from Rutland Herald.   A couple who founded their company based on a Rutland Town School solar project lost their lawsuit against the School Board because state law trumped their argument. Judge Mary Miles Teachout of Rutland Civil Court dismissed the case of Same Sun of Vermont, Inc. vs. Town of Rutland School District …

comments | read more

    

Caledonian-Record: Balking on the Border

May 11, 2012 01:57 pm | alina

Reposted from Caledonian-Record.   DERBY — If Derby Selectman Karen Jenne has her way, the Derby Select Board will vote Monday to oppose the Derby Line Wind Project. And then Jenne hopes that Encore Redevelopment — having lost support from the select board of the host community — will pull the plug on the wind …

comments | read more

    

VPR: Hydro Advocates Tout Bill That Expedites Permitting

May 11, 2012 01:52 pm | alina

Reposted from VPR.   Some advocates would like to see Vermont towns go back to the renewable energy future by relying more heavily on hydroelectricity. They say a bill to simplify the permit process that’s pending on Governor Peter Shumlin’s desk would make that more likely, but skeptics say hydro is still too inefficient and …

comments | read more

    

VPR: Wind Project In Northwestern Vt. Gets New Investor

May 11, 2012 10:36 am | alina

Reposted from VPR. Construction has started on a 10 megawatt wind energy development in northwestern Vermont. The Georgia Mountain project will feature four wind towers over 400 feet high. The development was launched by a local family. But recently it attracted a major new investor. Vermont renewable energy entrepreneur David Blittersdorf is now a member-owner …

SPOT-0511APD.mp3 1.6 MB

comments | read more

    

Orleans County Record: Quebec Renewable Energy Group Opposes Derby Line Wind

May 10, 2012 01:27 pm | alina

Reposted from Orleans County Record.   DERBY — The leader of a Quebec association of renewable energy producers says the Derby Line Wind Project should be changed or abandoned because of its proximity to homes in Quebec. Also this week, a Quebec politician raised the issue of the wind project and the impact on homeowners …

comments | read more

    

NY Times: Solar Installers Offer Deals, Gaining Converts

May 10, 2012 01:24 pm | alina

Reposted from NY Times.   HOLMDEL, N.J. — Jay Nuzzi, a New Jersey state trooper, had put off installing solar panels on his home here for years, deterred by the $70,000 it could cost. Then on a trip to Home Depot, he stumbled across a booth for Roof Diagnostics, which offered him a solar system …

comments | read more

    

Rutland Herald: Board gridlocked over solar project

May 10, 2012 01:21 pm | alina

Reposted from Rutland Herald.   A proposed solar power project is heading back to the Community and Economic Development Committee. Last week, the committee unanimously recommended that the Board of Aldermen authorize the mayor to sign a nonbinding memorandum of understanding with AllEarth Renewables, which would allow them to pursue financing for the project before …

comments | read more

    

Newport Daily Express: Big Wind Blows Into Brighton

May 09, 2012 11:04 pm | alina

Reposted from Newport Daily Express.   ISLAND POND – With strong local opposition to the construction of wind farms and/or “demonstration” projects in Orleans County, what will be the reaction to residents of Brighton, Newark and Ferdinand about the proposed wind farm by energy development company Eolian Renewable Energy LLC? Eolian filed for a Certificate …

comments | read more

    

Newport Daily Express: In the Game

May 09, 2012 11:02 pm | alina

Reposted from Newport Daily Express.   DERBY/ HOLLAND – The Vermont Public Service Board (PSB) granted intervener status on a permissive basis to two parties who want to participate in the process and hearings for the proposed controversial Derby Line Wind Project. The Holland and Derby Citizens Group for Responsible Energy (HDCRE) and Derby Line …

comments | read more

    

Seven Days: On the Canadian Border, a Wind Project Sparks International Intrigue

May 09, 2012 09:41 am | alina

Reposted from Seven Days.   At a boisterous rally on Sunday in Derby Line, residents expressed concerns about noise, aesthetics, possible damage to local wildlife and property values in opposition to a two-turbine wind development. But this was not your typical antiwind protest. Because the proposed turbines are a stone’s throw from the U.S.-Canadian border, …

comments | read more

    

WCAX: Wind power faces financial blow

May 09, 2012 09:39 am | alina

Reposted from WCAX.   MONTPELIER, Vt. – Northern Power Systems in Barre now has a new CEO. In a cost-cutting move last week the company replaced its chief executive and trimmed its workforce. Officials say it’s a sign of the times in the wind industry. “They’re already seeing up to– depending on the state– up …

comments | read more

    

Newport Daily Express: Wind Protesters Flood Haskell Grounds

May 07, 2012 01:58 pm | alina

Reposted from Newport Daily Express.   DERBY LINE, VT/STANSTEAD, QUE. – A protest against the proposed Derby Line Wind Project attracted a large turnout with more than 100 people from both sides of the border. Many had strong words against it and spoke passionately against wind farms in or near communities. Most guest speakers cited …

comments | read more

    

CBCNews: Quebec town on U.S. border protests wind turbines

May 07, 2012 01:54 pm | alina

Reposted CBCNews.   A proposed wind turbine project across the U.S. border has some in the neighbouring Eastern Townships concerned about the impact it will have on their own homes and safety. Residents in Stanstead, which shares the border with Derby Line, Vt., held a protest against the project Sunday, bolstered by the support of …

comments | read more

    

Orleans County Record: Anti-Wind Rally On The Border: Quebec Politicians Enter Fray

May 07, 2012 01:48 pm | alina

Reposted from Orleans County Record.   DERBY LINE, Vt./STANSTEAD, Quebec — A member of the Canadian Parliament representing the border town of Stanstead wants to be a party in the Vermont regulatory hearings over the Derby Line Wind Project. MP Jean Rousseau said Sunday, during a rally on the lawn at the international Haskell Free …

comments | read more

    

VTDigger: Final energy bill passes, minus renewable portfolio standard

May 05, 2012 07:04 pm | alina

Reposted from VTDigger.   This year’s energy bill passed Friday afternoon after weeks of uncertainty. The original version of the bill would have required utilities to purchase set amounts of renewable energy through a “renewable portfolio standard.” A few closed-door meetings later, the Senate version stripped that requirement and shuffled the bill through.   The …

comments | read more

    

Caledonian-Record: Derby Line Wind Developer Puts Brakes On Speed Of Project Review

May 05, 2012 07:01 pm | alina

Reposted from Caledonian-Record.   DERBY – Derby Line Wind Project developer Chad Farrell is calling for a slower pace to regulatory hearings in light of all the recent controversy that has spilled across the U.S.-Canadian border. Farrell, of Encore Redevelopment, said he no longer is trying to get quick approval from the Vermont Public Service …

comments | read more

    

Orleans County Record Editorial: Wind Blows

May 05, 2012 06:57 pm | alina

Reposted from Orleans County Record.   Vermont’s lone Congressman Peter Welch lobbied a key tax committee in Washington, D.C., last week, urging the extension of production tax credits for wind projects. The credits are set to expire at the end of the year. Welch said in testimony to the U.S. Ways and Means Committee that …

comments | read more

    

Rutland Herald: Committee backs solar project

May 04, 2012 05:06 pm | alina

Reposted from Rutland Herald.   A proposed solar project cleared committee this week, though it still has a ways to go before collectors appear off Woodstock Avenue. The Community and Economic Development Committee voted unanimously Tuesday to recommend that the full board authorize Mayor Christopher Louras to sign a nonbinding memorandum of understanding with AllEarth …

comments | read more

    

Caledonian-Record: Nelsons Go After Ridgeline Property Owner

May 04, 2012 05:04 pm | alina

Reposted from Caledonian-Record.   NEWPORT CITY — Retired farmers Don and Shirley Nelson intend to sue the company that has leased ridgeline property to Green Mountain Power for the Lowell wind project. The two avowed wind project opponents, whose historic Lowell farm sits in a valley below where 21 turbine sites are being constructed, are …

comments | read more

    

DERBY, VT/STANSTEAD, QUE. – Stanstead can now officially intervene on the proposed Derby Line Wind project, according to an order by the Vermont Public Service Board (PSB) issued May 9.

Stanstead residents and town officials are in an uproar over the proposed project and have held rallies against it. Stanstead Mayor Philippe Dutil even threatened to shut off the water to Beebe Plains, VT, if Vermont towns and villages on the border support the project.

The Town of Stanstead requested to intervene because of the proximity of the project to Stanstead residents, according to the motion.

Stanstead says the project would affect residents with noise, visual and light impacts, and many other issues.

PSB hearing officer John Cotter granted permissive intervention for Stanstead officials to provide testimony of the potential impact to the orderly development of the region, potential impacts on the natural environment and historical sites, aesthetics north of the border, and impacts on the water supply and purity on the International Water Company.

Stanstead also wanted to intervene on economic impacts from the project in Vermont, but that was denied. The project developer, Encore Redevelopment, LLC of Burlington, did not object to Stanstead’s involvement, except for any testimony on the economic impact. And Encore said it would only support the motion from Stanstead if the town agreed to not request extension in the schedule.

The Department of Public Service sent a letter stating support for Stanstead in the PSB process.

Cotter has also issued an order suspending the schedule. Parties had until May 11 to file testimony, however that deadline will now be reschedule.

Encore wants to construct two turbines, more than 400 feet tall each, on two farms just east of Derby Line on the US-Canadian border, and is seeking two Certificates of Public Good. Despite opposition, the developers continue moving forward, maintaining that there is also support.