In his State of the Union address, President Obama called for more investment in renewable energy, including wind energy that is emerging as a relatively new component of Vermont’s electricity sector. Expanding renewable energy is the right thing to do, both for the immediate benefit of cleaner air and jobs, and to reduce carbon emissions that cause climate change.

However, the proposed Deerfield wind energy project in the Green Mountain National Forest near Readsboro is an example of a good idea — clean green energy — in the wrong place.

In our state, public lands harbor some of the last remaining pockets of wild forest. One such place, the Lamb Brook area where the eastern half of the project is proposed, drew the public’s attention in the mid-1990s when the Forest Service proposed to log the area. Easily accessible, the roadless area attracts hunters, anglers, snowmobiles, the occasional hiker, bobcat and black bear. Concerned about impacts from road building and logging to black bear habitat and the loss of wild forest statewide, conservation interests secured a court order to stop the project. Building the project as it is currently proposed again threatens the area that people have come to value for solitude and escape, and which is important habitat for wildlife.

Since this project was originally proposed in 2004, energy policy in Vermont has evolved considerably. The state government recently adopted a comprehensive energy plan that recognizes the impacts from utility-scale wind projects (like the proposed Deerfield project). The plan specifically states that the Agency of Natural Resources is conducting a resource inventory to identify sensitive habitats where wind development is inappropriate and places where wind development can proceed without undue environmental harm. These studies are essential to making sure we aren’t faced with a false choice between our rich natural heritage and a clean energy future.

The Wilderness Society has worked to have the federal government adopt a similar approach to renewables development on federal land. If we take the time to study the landscape and determine in advance of project proposals where we can expect high and low impacts — both environmental and commercial — development can be steered to appropriate places and away from areas of conflict. This is already happening out west with big solar projects on federal lands. But if this approach is not extended to onshore wind in our eastern national forests, developers will continue to choose project sites based only on energy potential alone. The administration can do more to make sure the Forest Service has the staff, the resources, and the direction to make clear ahead of time, which areas are too wild to develop, and which are not.

So Vermont is setting an example that the Forest Service needs to follow — complete the analysis of Vermont’s renewable energy potential and natural values to inform land use policies that guide tomorrow’s energy investments to the right places.

Leanne Klyza Linck is assistant vice president for eastern conservation with The Wilderness Society, based in Hinesburg.

NEWPORT CITY — Judge Robert P. Gerety Jr. on Wednesday threw out the state’s contempt of court case against two Sterling College students who were involved in the protest against the Lowell wind project.

Gerety said the students, Trevor Ring and David Martorana, had no way of knowing on Nov. 16 that they were about to be in contempt of a preliminary injunction banning anyone from being within a 1,000-foot blast safety zone at certain times.

The students’ attorney, Kristina Michelson, argued last week in Orleans Superior Court–Criminal Division, that the state couldn’t prove that the students knew when blasting would take place.

Michelson said the state did not have enough evidence in the first place to even charge the students with contempt of court.

Gerety agreed.

“There was no evidence received tending to show that the defendants were notified of the time that blasting would begin on the day they were arrested,” Gerety wrote in his three-page ruling. “There was no evidence from which a reasonable person could infer that the defendants knew the time that blasting would begin on the day they were arrested.”

Gerety called that an essential element of any prosecution for contempt of court of the preliminary injunction. He said the state did not provide “substantial, admissible evidence” for an essential element in the charge, even when considered in a way most favorable for the state.

Gerety did not make any decision in the defense request to dismiss a trespassing charge against Chronicle Publisher Christopher Braithwaite, who was cited while covering a protest on the Lowell wind site in December. Gerety last week asked attorneys for more evidence before he would make a decision.

And the trespassing charges against six protesters are still in criminal court, with no date set yet for trial.

Last fall, protesters gathered in the blast safety zone on neighboring property owned by Don and Shirley Nelson to intentionally hinder blasting.

That prompted wind project developer Green Mountain Power to request a preliminary injunction in civil court to stop them.

The preliminary injunction by Judge Martin Manley had to be rewritten several times before local law enforcement officers would agree to try and enforce it.

Once enforced, protesters such as Dr. Ron Holland of Irasburg warned deputies and state police that they wouldn’t be able to press any charges in court.

The preliminary injunction lasted long enough for GMP to complete blasting near property owned by the Nelsons. The injunction expired in early December, after construction of the wind project moved to different parts of the Lowell mountain ridgeline and protesters could no longer affect the blast schedule.

The Sterling students were on the mountain during blasting near the Nelson property in November. They were on the mountain, with others, on Nov. 9, deputies said in their affidavit. At that time, they were given a copy of the preliminary injunction and warned about the blasting safety zone and the two-hour warning whistle.

But on Nov. 16, Gerety noted, the students had not known when the blasting would happen, had not heard a warning whistle and thought the area was clear. They were arrested and charged.

“The terms of the preliminary injunction are clear that the persons described in the order are enjoined from being present in the 1,000-foot area during a specific time frame starting two hours before blasting activity is scheduled to start and ending when the all-clear whistle is sounded,” Gerety wrote.

“Accordingly, one essential element of any prosecution for contempt of the preliminary injunction is that the individuals involved are notified of the time that blasting is scheduled to begin. In the absence of such notice the individuals involved lack the information necessary to conform their conduct to the requirements of the order,” Gerety wrote. “Accordingly, the defendants’ motion to dismiss must be granted.”

Gerety said GMP was ordered to warn the public of any blasting as part of the preliminary injunction.

And GMP was also supposed to provide notice of the blasting to law enforcement officers “sufficient to allow for execution of this order,” Gerety said.

“There was no evidence presented at the hearing from which the court is able to find that GMP complied with these orders. In fact, the evidence received on this topic was that GMP did not provide law enforcement with notice of the time that blasting would begin,” Gerety said.

Michelson had raised two other points that she said would warrant dismissal of the state’s case.

She argued that the preliminary injunction was too vague and not enforceable. She also said the students weren’t even among those targeted by the court order.

Gerety didn’t address those issues in his decision because there was no need, he said.

The charges were dismissed without prejudice, meaning that the state has the right to present its case again to the court.

I am writing in response to Avram Patt’s opinion piece that appeared in the Herald and Times Argus last week. While Mr. Patt made some interesting points, there are issues in his piece that must be addressed.

For example, he asserts that there is a one-to-one ratio between wind power generated and the reduction of power generated from other sources. There is no reliable data to support this assertion. Here in the New England grid with the inefficient ramping of natural gas plants, wind may be actually increasing greenhouse gas emissions rather than reducing them. We don’t know.

The capacity numbers Patt presents for Sheffield are inaccurate. While the “nameplate” capacity of those turbines might be 2.5 megawatts, the most optimistic estimates are that the turbines will produce around 30 percent of their theoretical potential. These are the numbers the developer provided the Public Service Board. Project supporters and press often overstate how much production we can actually expect from these destructive projects in their attempts to defend them.

Patt’s claim that “mountains are not being blasted apart” glosses over the truth. The mountains in Lowell are, in fact, being blasted apart. There GMP has blasted away at so much mountain it has created new 40-foot cliffs that previously weren’t there. Additionally, it has created miles of bulldozed roads and turbine pads in what once was untouched forestland, headwaters and wildlife habitat. This description is apt, and it is happening right here in Vermont and is unlike anything happening at our ski resorts.

Patt suggests it is time to move because we have been discussing the issue for years. Years of planning unfortunately are not the same as experiencing the impacts firsthand. With two operating projects, three others approved or under construction, we are now just beginning to understand the full-scale impacts of these developments. Now is a good time to pause and take a look at what is really happening.

I agree with Patt that the most valuable thing we can contribute to the fight against climate change is, in fact, our ridges. Our most valuable resource, though, is not the wind that blows across them but the habitat they create. As climate change happens, plants and animals under stress will need refuges, places where they can go to survive. Unspoiled mountain ridges are the best refuge available, and that’s one thing that Vermont has that few other places do.

We must respond to climate change, but we should do it in the most effective ways. We can’t have both big wind and unspoiled ridgelines in Vermont. By developing our ridgelines to take advantage of a mediocre resource, we are destroying a premium resource.

Lastly, Patt is unnecessarily negative about the outlook of smaller community-scale renewable energy projects. Solar is undergoing a historic cost decline, and innovative energy storage technologies will be available in the next couple of years. Imagine how we will feel if we sacrifice our mountains now for technology that is outdated in a few short years.

We have two paths. The first is doom and gloom and sacrificing our unspoiled mountains. The second saves the resource Vermont is uniquely positioned to contribute to the cause and harnesses the power of our communities to overcome the challenges we all face. I’ll take the second, and keep the mountains.

Lukas B. Snelling is the executive director of Energize Vermont, a renewable energy advocacy group based in Rutland.

1. Contact Your Legislator - They want to hear from you, and it is important you express your concern that our current ad-hoc planning process is not doing enough to protect our communities and our natural resources from the impacts of utility-scale wind development.
2. Write a Letter to the Editor - It is important that others hear how you feel about this issue. Not everyone has a had a chance to research it, so it is good for you to spread the word.
3. Join Energize Vermont - Just because you are on our email list doesn’t mean you are a member. The more members we have the bigger voice we have. Membership is FREE, so join today.
4. Share Vermont’s Energy Options - Send an email to your friends and neighbors sharingour documentary video so everyone can learn about these issues and understand why it is important we take action.

A big thank you for everyone that came to Montpelier on Thursday and supported the message that utility-scale wind requires too many sacrifices to go unexamined. I appreciate your support and believe that together we can find solutions for our energy and climate challenges that are good fit for our communities and preserve the character of our state.

In other news this week, the Public Service Board will be kicking off the permit process for the Derby wind project on February 13th with a pre-hearing meeting. The Rutland Herald reported that experts examining the GMP/CVPS merger determined that the current deal seems to favor corporate profits over customer savings. The Herald also reported on the recent meetings from the PSB process for the North Springfield biomass plant.

Please, if you have a free moment this week, do all of the things listed above and let me know that you did so. It is important our elected officials know you feel passionately about how we implement renewable energy in this state. Also, we are member supported, so if you appreciate our efforts please make a tax-deductible contribution.

Thank you again for your support and  have a great weekend,

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

Burlington Free Press: Wind opponents rally at Statehouse Thursday

Feb 03, 2012 04:02 pm | alina

Reposted from Burlington Free Press.   MONTPELIER — Opponents of large-scale wind projects, declaring “ridgelines are not renewable,” rallied at the Statehouse on Thursday, calling for a moratorium on such projects. “State regulators need to take time to assess the impacts of the projects already approved, to understand what we are losing and what we …

comments | read more

    

Barton Chronicle: Letter to the Editor

Feb 03, 2012 01:54 pm | alina

January 25th’s Barton Chronicle contained a relevant Letter to the Editor.  Download this page in PDF format.

comments | read more

    

VTDigger: Energize Vermont calls for moratorium on wind farm development in Vermont

Feb 03, 2012 01:54 pm | alina

Reposted from VTDigger.   Lukas Snelling, executive director of Energize Vermont, warned a packed room at the Statehouse on Thursday that the environmental impacts of industrial scale wind are already apparent in Vermont. “The blasting on Lowell Mountain is happening,” Snelling said. “The blades above the houses in Sheffield are spinning. We have the ability …

comments | read more

    

Fox News: Groups Protest Statehouse To Protect Ridgelines

Feb 03, 2012 01:54 pm | alina

Reposted from Fox News. Montpelier, Vermont – People looking to put an end to mountain windmill projects took over the Vermont Statehouse, Thursday. They were found outside holding signs and playing music. FOX44 was there as they packed into the Statehouse hallways and jammed into committee rooms, trying to pass along this message.   “We …

comments | read more

    

Barton Chronicle: Braithwaite Case, Wind Protesters, and Letters to the Editor

Feb 03, 2012 01:54 pm | alina

This week’s Barton Chronicle included coverage of the Braithwaite case, the Lowell Mountain student protester case, and relevant Letters to the Editor.  Download the relevant page in PDF format.

comments | read more

    

Caledonian Record: Derby Wind Permit Process Begins

Feb 01, 2012 11:09 am | alina

Reposted from Caledonian-Record.   Vermont utility regulators have set in motion the process for considering permits for the Derby Line wind project. The Vermont Public Service Board scheduled what’s called a pre-hearing meeting on Feb. 13 at 1 p.m. at the board’s offices in Montpelier.   This pre-hearing brings the developers and all the interested …

comments | read more

    

Caledonian-Record: Big Wind: Opponents Are Seeking Moratorium

Feb 01, 2012 11:09 am | alina

Reposted from Caledonian-Record.   Activists continue this week to press the Legislature to issue a moratorium on utility-scale wind projects such as the one planned for Lowell and already exists in Sheffield.   They, including those opposed to the Lowell wind project, want lawmakers, experts and communities to take some time to assess the impacts …

comments | read more

    

Rutland Herald: Hearing to focus on biomass plant

Feb 01, 2012 11:09 am | alina

Reposted from Rutland Herald.   MONTPELIER — Impacts from invasive bugs, depletion of groundwater, air pollution and forest health are some of the concerns that will be aired in upcoming hearings on the proposed 25 to 35 megawatt woodchip-fired power plant in North Springfield. The first step in the state approval process unfolded Tuesday in …

comments | read more

    

Rutland Herald: PSB’s Volz answers to lawmakers

Feb 01, 2012 11:09 am | alina

Reposted from Rutland Herald.   MONTPELIER — If the future of the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant and the merger of the state’s two largest electric utilities are among the most important issues facing Vermont, James Volz is among the most important officials in the state. Volz has been chairman of the Public Service Board for …

comments | read more

    

Rutland Herald: Experts: CVPS-GMP merger favors corporate profits over customer savings

Feb 01, 2012 08:56 am | alina

Reposted from Rutland Herald.   MONTPELIER — A proposed merger of the state’s two largest electric utilities will do more to enlarge profits at a Canadian energy conglomerate than it will to reduce the cost of power to Vermonters, according to recent testimony filed in the case. In a deal that would consolidate about 70 …

comments | read more

    

Rutland Herald Editorial: Renewable progress

Jan 28, 2012 04:49 pm | EV

Below is an editorial reposted here from the Rutland Herald. Published: January 28, 2012   Over the past six years production of wind turbines in the United States has grown by 12 times, according to a report in The New York Times. There are now more than 400 facilities in 43 states, and according to …

comments | read more

    

WPTZ: Neighbor, GMP At Odds Over Wind Turbine

Jan 28, 2012 04:31 pm | EV

Reported here from WPTZ.   VERGENNES, Vt. — A recently installed wind turbine in Vergennes is the first in a Green Mountain Power project targeting smaller community projects, but one neighbor is so upset about it that he wants to move away.   The turbine, installed at the Northlands Job Corps in Vergennes, is 120 …

comments | read more

    

Addison Independent: GMP’s Powell touts advantages of merger

Jan 28, 2012 04:29 pm | EV

Reposted here from the Addison Independent. MIDDLEBURY — Green Mountain Power CEO Mary Powell believes her company’s proposed merger with Central Vermont Public Service Corp. (CVPS) will stabilize utility rates, save customers $500 million during the next 20 years and make the state a stronger place to do business. Powell hammered home that message during …

comments | read more

    

Thursday February 2nd was Ridges Are Not Renewable day at the Vermont State House. Energize Vermont held a press conference where Executive Director Lukas Snelling called for a moratorium on utility-scale wind development in Vermont. Below are his comments from that day. You can also download them in a PDF. 

ENERGIZE VERMONT PRESS CONFERNCE

Ridges Are Not Renewable Day – February 2^nd, 2012

Comments by Lukas B. Snelling, Executive Director

Two years ago, almost to the day, we gathered here in this room to announce the formation of a group dedicated to preserving Vermont’s character while also moving our energy portfolio towards good, clean, and renewable sources.  Almost every day since then we have seen concerned Vermonters join this effort, growing our ranks to include leading Vermonters who have been the guardians of Vermont’s landscape and environment, and demonstrating that Vermonters have an undying passion to protect the things we love about our state.

Since then our state has embarked on an ad-hoc energy planning process, one that has done little to protect Vermont’s natural resources, or our communities. But we know more now than we did two years ago. Now we no longer have just concerns for the impacts of large utility-scale wind projects on our ridges – we have experience. Today there are two operating projects, three approved or under construction, and over 10 in different stages on the drawing boards.

We find ourselves at a crossroads.  The blasting on Lowell Mountain is happening.  The blades above the houses in Sheffield are spinning.  We have the ability to investigate the impacts of this industrial development on our ridges and take the time to determine if we should let this continue throughout the state.

I’d like to thank the legislature for taking the initial steps towards this investigation and receiving testimony today from experts on how these projects will impact our most pristine headwater streams and critical wildlife habitats. Members of the Senate National Resources and Energy Committee and the House Fish, Wildlife and Water Resources Committee will hear how important it is that we conserve our natural resources in order to preserve Vermont’s most effective tool for adapting to climate change.

These experts will tell legislators that fragmenting wildlife habitats in our high elevations prevents those areas from acting as refuges for wildlife as the climate changes. They will also describe how our high elevation ridges are home to our highest quality water, and once you lose that you can’t get it back.

Later today, Energize Vermont will unveil a film that represents many, many hours of hard work. We worked with a team of committed individuals to travel around the state and region to research just how building out utility-scale wind in Vermont would impact our communities, our energy future and our natural resources. Today, we’ll get to see the latest results of that project, and see why utility-scale wind isn’t a fit for Vermont, and how smaller-scale community oriented renewable energy projects can bring us together and do their part to solve our climate challenges.

With that in mind, I turn now to the message of the day. United as members of Energize Vermont, as residents of communities impacted by utility-scale wind, as committed individuals to combating climate change, and as voting Vermonters, we are calling for an immediate moratorium on further utility-scale wind development in Vermont. 

With so much at risk, the time to act is now.  State regulators need to take time to assess the impacts of the projects already approved, to understand what we are losing, and what we have lost. Now is the time, armed with experience, to have the conversation about how we can revise our current hit or miss policy to ensure the safety of our wildlife habitats, water quality, and healthy communities.

I do not stand alone in making this call. Recently in a VPR commentary former editor of Vermont Life magazine Tom Slayton said, “We need a more thoughtful way to make [energy] choices when mountaintops are involved.”

In a recent Burlington Free Press Commentary banker and former chairman of the Vermont Environmental Board John Ewing wrote, “Wind power is important – but until we develop clearer public policy, transparency in location, and a process for citizen involvement, then the landscape in Vermont may be compromised without adequate review.”

Then in a Rutland Herald editorial it was reported Green Mountain Power’s CEO Mary Powell acknowledged, “that Vermont may need to take a breather on new wind projects to assess how and where to proceed after the battle in Lowell.”

Just two days ago, the Rutland Herald reported that when Chairman of the Public Service Board James Volz was asked, “How do we find the right balance between developing wind projects and preserving the character of Vermont?”, he answered, “I think that’s something the Legislature has to sort out.”

And so I ask, let’s sort it out.

It is important that this “time-out” not be seen as an effort to diminish our response to climate change, but rather as a necessary step to optimize our response while preserving the character of our state. A moratorium on developing one option does not prevent us from making strides towards a renewable driven economy.

Last week I had the incredible opportunity to facilitate a community conversation in Poultney Vermont about developing a group-net metered PV solar installation. The meeting was attended by over 60 Vermonters committed to combating climate change using community-oriented solutions. The thirst for solutions that are both good for the environment and preserve the health of our communities was profound.

With the historic decline in PV solar pricing continuing, these projects and this technology will likely drive us into the future. One thing is clear, the resource is there: Vermont’s solar resource is 620 times greater than its wind resource.

Meanwhile, ISO-New England and Hydro-Quebec currently have substantial excess generation capacity. When, and if, Vermont Yankee closes, we still have access to power from other sources that can meet our demand. A time out on big wind would also give us the opportunity to invest further in efficiency and ensure we have reduced our demand before building new generation sources.

And so today we say “Ridges are Not Renewable”.  As critical and disappearing habitat for plants and animals under stress from climate change, Vermont’s ridges are our very best tool to fight climate change.  Our forest lands are among the most important carbon sponges in the world.  We should not develop them for a resource that can do very little to solve the real challenges we face.

The crossroads we stand at today has two paths. The first sacrifices our unspoiled mountains, diminishes the very best resource we can bring to the fight against climate change, creates conflict in our communities, discards our environmental ethic and undercuts the very character of Vermont. This is the path we will have chosen if we continue unabated. The second path saves the resource Vermont is uniquely positioned to contribute to our efforts to combat climate change, and harnesses the power of our communities to overcome the challenges we all face. Frankly, I’ll take the second, and keep the mountains.

Thank you very much for coming today.

MONTPELIER — Opponents of large-scale wind projects, declaring “ridgelines are not renewable,” rallied at the Statehouse on Thursday, calling for a moratorium on such projects.

“State regulators need to take time to assess the impacts of the projects already approved, to understand what we are losing and what we have lost,” said Lukas Snelling, executive director of Energize Vermont.

He found little traction among legislative leaders. Senate Natural Resources Committee Chairman Virginia Lyons, D-Chittenden, told the crowd of about 50, “Wind is in the mix. It’s not going away.”

Montpelier, Vermont – People looking to put an end to mountain windmill projects took over the Vermont Statehouse, Thursday. They were found outside holding signs and playing music.

FOX44 was there as they packed into the Statehouse hallways and jammed into committee rooms, trying to pass along this message.

“We are calling for an immediate moratorium on further utility-scale wind development in our state,” said Energize Vermont Director of Communications Lukas Snelling.

The group put up photos taken from the top of Lowell Mountain, a place that Vermont’s second-largest utility, Green Mountain Power, is putting in a number of windmills.

Some people believe before the state adds more of these types of projects it needs to step back.

“Basically because there’s pristine wilderness and now it’s a superhighway of sorts,” said Robert Hurst.

FOX44 asked state lawmakers who heard testimony on Thursday about the possibility of a moratorium. They say it’s an idea that won’t get very far.

“Wind is a part of our renewable energy portfolio and I think it will stay that way. The question is how much and where,” said State Senator Virginia Lyons.

Governor Peter Shumlin wants 90% of Vermont’s energy to be renewable by 2050.

Some people say they hope we get there but without having to ruin the beauty of the Green Mountain State.

“We think that solar with its impressive decline in price, its universal resource and its scalability for our communities is a much better solution for renewable energy in this state,” said Snelling.

People were talking to lawmakers Thursday, not to provide information for a bill, but for lawmakers to have that information on hand for future decisions.

Lukas Snelling, executive director of Energize Vermont, warned a packed room at the Statehouse on Thursday that the environmental impacts of industrial scale wind are already apparent in Vermont.

“The blasting on Lowell Mountain is happening,” Snelling said. “The blades above the houses in Sheffield are spinning. We have the ability to investigate the impacts of this industrial development on our ridges and take the time to determine if we should let this continue throughout the state.”

Energize Vermont called for a moratorium on the further development of wind farms in Vermont at a press conference on Feb. 2.

Members of the organization argued that expanding industrial scale wind farms in Vermont will negatively affect mountain and forest habitats, water quality, and the health of communities near wind farms. Snelling talked about problems with Green Mountain Power’s Lowell Mountain wind project. Last fall road construction for the 21 turbine wind farm was found in violation of the Clean Water Act and also prompted citizens to camp on Lowell Mountain in protest.

VPIRG executive director Paul Burns was skeptical of some of the arguments made by Snelling about wind power. VPIRG, a nonprofit consumer and environmental advocacy organization, also campaigns for renewable energy and it supports the construction of large-scale wind farms.

“Certainly the legislature isn’t going to enact a moratorium on wind in the state,” Burns said. “Vermont probably has the toughest regulations in the country with respect to wind development – it’s already very hard to build wind [installations] here.”

Burns’ prediction mirrored comments made by Sen. Virginia Lyons, D-Chittenden, who indicated that it is unlikely Vermont will drop wind farms from its renewable energy portfolio.

“The primary thing we can do in our state is to provide an efficient use of whatever kind of energy we have,” Lyons said. “And that energy should be renewable. Wind is in the mix, it’s not going away. But certainly we need to inform our regulatory process, and inform the discussion about the very issues that you bring to us.”

As part of its call for a moratorium, Energize Vermont proposes offsetting the expansion of wind farms with smaller-scale community based renewable energy projects, like solar panel installations.

Snelling said Vermont could purchase “renewable” energy from Hydro-Quebec and ISO-New England in the interim, as the state searches for solutions to nuclear power or fossil fuels. Hydropower is considered a form of “renewable energy” in Vermont, though this label is contested in other states including Connecticut.

Burns questioned the idea that wind power could be swapped for solar power. In a handout distributed by VPIRG at the event, the organization noted that one wind turbine at the Lowell wind farm produces as much power as 1,428 residential 5kW solar instillations or 62 community 100kW turbines.

“We think we should do small solar projects for sure, but it’s not an alternative,” Burns said. “I’m in lock step with these guys in the concept that we need to maximize small, but that’s not going to be the complete answer to our energy needs. They’re either being disingenuous or either misrepresenting the truth if they’re saying that’s a real alternative.”

Snelling was unfazed by VPIRG’s criticism, arguing that in VPIRG’s bid to shut down the Vermont Yankee, the organization would support any solution.

“Our stance is we want to build renewable energy projects in the right places and right ways,” Snelling said. “So our approach is more nuanced but it’s about caring and protecting the things that we all love – that’s our high quality water, unfragmented habitats, and our united and healthy communities.”

MONTPELIER — If the future of the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant and the merger of the state’s two largest electric utilities are among the most important issues facing Vermont, James Volz is among the most important officials in the state.

Volz has been chairman of the Public Service Board for the past six years after being appointed by former Gov. James Douglas, and he is now seeking confirmation for another term following reappointment by Gov. Peter Shumlin.

The three-member, quasi-judicial Public Service Board regulates electric, telecommunications and gas utilities in Vermont.

During what amounted to a very public job interview before lawmakers, lobbyists and the media, Volz sat before the Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday and answered questions from lawmakers — at least those that he could.

Volz was limited in what could say about cases that are or could be before the quasi-judicial panel he chairs, so he couldn’t talk about the Vermont Yankee case or the merger of Central Vermont Public Service and Green Mountain Power.

But those and other hot-button issues clearly are what generated interest in his hearing, despite a widespread expectation that Volz will be easily confirmed and given another six-year term.

“I know there is some interest in the wind energy decisions and definitely Vermont Yankee is on people’s minds,” Sen. Ann Cummings, chairwoman of the Senate Finance Committee, said at the outset of the hearing.

Volz described some of his accomplishments over the years, and said the board has gone from mostly engaging in big battles with utilities over rate increases to dealing with numerous cases that often include smaller projects.

The board handled more than 2,000 applications and amendments for net metered renewable energy projects during the last seven years, for instance, compared to 160 the previous six years, Volz said.

Volz said there are “big issues with lots of money involved and a lot of attention,” but noted that smaller projects can be just as involved.

Senators on the Finance Committee asked questions that touched on Vermont Yankee, wind projects on ridgelines and the utility merger, often dancing around the specific parties in a case, though it was clear what the questions related to.

Volz declined to comment on several of them, including one from Cummings related to Vermont Yankee and how the board will handle the process now that a federal judge has struck down Vermont’s case.

“So we’re going to have to figure out what to do, but I can’t talk about it,” said Volz.

Though he has made decisions on controversial decision, criticism of Volz was muted at the Statehouse on Tuesday, but the Senate Finance Committee is open to hearing from Vermonters with concerns about the reappointment.

Cummings said the committee won’t vote on Volz’s confirmation until at least next week, which will allow time for Vermonters who want to testify to do so.

No one but Volz testified on Tuesday.

“Like all judges, he merely enforces the law,” said Cummings. “We are the ones who tell him what the law is. That can put anyone in a judicial position feeling the wrath of what we did.”

Rep. Tony Klein, who chairs the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee, praised Volz.

“He is a jurist,” said Klein, “and he’s very, fair and knowledgeable and bright. He’s not what you would call an activist judge at all.”

Sen. Vince Illuzzi has been concerned that the $700 million CVPS-GMP merger would give GMP’s Canadian parent company, Gaz Metro, too much control over Vermont’s transmission lines. The merger case is now before the Public Service Board.

Illuzzi didn’t criticize Volz, but argues the board has become too active in creating policy. Illuzzi said he saw the shift taking place starting in the 1990s, and he previously introduced a bill that would make the board members elected officials and more accountable to the public.

“Do you think a three-member unelected board should be making the decision on whether Vermont Yankee should stay open?” Illuzzi asked.

In his comments, Volz made it clear he views many issues case by case and that at least on some topics sees the board’s job as interpreting policies created by the Legislature.

During Volz’s time on the board, regulators have approved four utility-scale wind projects in Vermont, including the project being built on Lowell Mountain that has faced fierce opposition.

Sen. Tim Ashe, a Democrat-Progressive representing Chittenden County, asked Volz about the right balance between developing wind projects and preserving the character of Vermont.

“I think that’s something the Legislature has to sort out,” Volz said.

MONTPELIER — Impacts from invasive bugs, depletion of groundwater, air pollution and forest health are some of the concerns that will be aired in upcoming hearings on the proposed 25 to 35 megawatt woodchip-fired power plant in North Springfield.

The first step in the state approval process unfolded Tuesday in Montpelier, before a hearing officer for the Public Service Board, which will review the proposed project under the state’s certificate of public good process.

Hearing Officer Edward McNamara said a site visit and a public hearing for the project would be held Feb. 28 in Springfield, with formal technical hearings held later.

McNamara urged concerned residents or organizations to file for intervenor status as soon as possible and to get educated about the process for reviewing the joint project by Winstanley Enterprises LLC and Weston Solutions Inc.

Winstanley and Weston Solutions of Concord, N.H., want to build the woodchip plant on a flat 22-acre field next to the former Fellows Corp. building, which is now owned by Winstanley and has been turned into a business incubator building.

The power plant would be built in a field immediately adjacent to the Winstanley building, and would also produce steam for heating at companies in the North Springfield Industrial Park.

Attending the session were three residents of North Springfield, who said they were a part of a group of North Springfield residents concerned about the size of the project.

Attending the meeting were representatives from organizations or state agencies such as the Agency of Agriculture and the Vermont Natural Resources Council.

Diane Zamos, staff attorney for the Agency of Agriculture, said the woodchip plant was not on prime agriculture soils, but that the agency was concerned about invasive insects coming to Vermont from fuel for the plant.

In particular, she said, the state is worried about two insects that are highly destructive — the wooly hemlock adelgid, which is already in Windham County, and the emerald ash borer, which last year was seen on Vermont’s borders.

“It’s all about bugs,” Zamos said.

Jamey Fidel, general counsel and forest program director for the Vermont Natural Resources Council, said his organization was concerned about the impacts on forest health from such a plant, as well as water quality issues.

“It’s the first large-scale biomass plant in 20 years,“ Fidel said. He said that the VNRC had not taken a stand on the North Springfield project as yet.

He said that the two existing woodchip plants had procurement practices that protected rare species and wetlands, among other considerations.

Currently there are two biomass generating stations in the state: the McNeil woodchip plant in Burlington, which started operating in 1984 and produces 50 megawatts, and the Ryegate plant, which started operating in 1992 and generates 22 megawatts. The North Springfield plant would be between 25 to 35 megawatts.

Beaver Wood Energy has proposed a 29 megawatt plant for Fair Haven, and they sent a representative to sit in on the Winstanley hearing.

Robert Kischko, Fredda Kischko and Richard Hunter said the project would have a dramatic effect on their homes on Baker Road. They said they had a meeting with neighbors earlier in the week who were all concerned about the project.

Robert Kischko, an engineer, and his wife, Fredda, said the Winstanley project would use an enormous amount of water — 500 gallons a minute, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

The water would either come from drilled wells on the Winstanley land or from the Springfield municipal system.

Fredda Kischko said after the hearing that either way, the project “would tap into the aquifer, big time” and that many people were worried about the effect on their own wells.

Many people’s first impulse is to support the project because it will bring jobs to Springfield, she said, as well as tax revenue.

But people need to see the long-term effects of the project, she said.

Robert Kischko said he was not opposed to biomass, but that it was a matter of scale. The Winstanley project, whose exact size hasn’t been settled yet, is too big, he said.

The Kischkos and Hunter both said they had a “high level of confidence” in the Public Service Board process to review the proposal and raise important questions.

“We have to use it, too,” Hunter said.

All three said Winstanley’s reputation was good in the community, which may be lulling people into not looking into the details of the project.

Ed McNamara, the PSB hearing officer, set the public site visit and hearing for Feb. 28, with the site visit slated to begin at 1 p.m., and the public hearing slated for 7 p.m. The location will be announced later.

susan.smallheer@rutlandherald.com[/URL]

Activists continue this week to press the Legislature to issue a moratorium on utility-scale wind projects such as the one planned for Lowell and already exists in Sheffield.

They, including those opposed to the Lowell wind project, want lawmakers, experts and communities to take some time to assess the impacts of recently constructed projects.

On Thursday, critics will take their case to the Statehouse in Montpelier on what they are calling “Ridges Are Not Renewable Day.”

Energize Vermont announced Tuesday that the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the House Fish, Wildlife and Water Resources Committee are expected to hear testimony from wildlife and water quality experts about the current impacts of the wind projects.

Also Thursday, Energize Vermont will screen a documentary in meeting room 10 at the Statehouse about the role of utility-scale wind development in Vermont that calls for an end to what Energize Vermont calls an ad hoc approach to wind energy development in Vermont.

Afterward, Energize Vermont will host a panel of wind experts and critics, including Steve Wright of Craftsbury, former commissioner of the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department, Ben Luce, professor of sustainability of Lyndon State College a hydrologist who critiqued impact on water runoff of the Lowell wind project.

The panel will speak at 1:30 p.m. at the Statehouse.

Also, about 30 hikers braved winter weather and several feet of snow on Lowell Mountain Sunday afternoon to attend the third open house organized by the Occupy Lowell group opposed to ridgeline wind projects.

The group also hosted a gathering afterward at the Albany school.

And this week the Lowell Mountain Group, composed of neighbors of the Lowell wind project, announced its first annual meeting Feb. 16 at the Eastside Restaurant in Newport City.

The event begins at 6 p.m. with a social time followed by dinner. The evening will feature the movie Windfall about the wind industry and a solar power specialist who will discuss off-the-grid solar electricity.

The public is welcome and asked to RSVP by Feb. 10 at 802-744-2465 or by email atirishhill@pshift.com.

Vermont utility regulators have set in motion the process for considering permits for the Derby Line wind project.

The Vermont Public Service Board scheduled what’s called a pre-hearing meeting on Feb. 13 at 1 p.m. at the board’s offices in Montpelier.

This pre-hearing brings the developers and all the interested parties together to discuss the pace and details of the upcoming hearing schedule for the project.

After the pre-hearing, the Public Service Board would set the deadline for briefs, the dates for the evidentiary “technical” hearings and also decide who is allowed to participate in those hearings.

The schedule would be posted on the board’s website at psb.vermont.gov under the docket number 7832.

Encore Redevelopment filed an application in December with the board under Vermont law section 248 to erect two industrial grade wind turbines on two Derby farms near the Village of Derby Line and Interstate 91 at the Canadian border.

The turbines, estimated at 427 feet tall from base to blade tip, each require what’s called a certificate of public good from the board.

Chad Farrell, of Encore, has spoken at several select board meetings in Derby and Holland as well as with the Derby Line Village trustees and the town council in Stanstead, Quebec.

He expects to meet with the Derby Select Board after the Feb. 13 pre-hearing to further explain the process.

And Farrell continues to look into the idea posed by several residents in Holland of a tour for Derby area people to see and hear large wind turbines up close.

The Sheffield wind project of 16 large turbines is now operational. Tours may be offered in the summer, according to First Wind officials. Farrell said there might be an opportunity to see those turbines sometime this winter as well.

Section 248 Process

The Section 248 process governs the permitting of energy projects — like wind projects — and transmission lines.

Like Act 250 land use procedures, Section 248 allows state agencies, towns and other municipal organizations, neighboring landowners and other groups to participate as parties in the case.

But unlike Act 250, the process is more like a court trial than a hearing before a town planning commission.

Details about how the process works are available in a citizens’ guide on the Public Service Board website.

A person, town or group that is accepted as a party in the hearings by the Public Service Board is called an “intervenor.”

The intervenors can challenge the developers’ evidence and offer evidence of their own.

But the process has limits. The board can restrict intervenors to only those areas of evidence that the board allows, as those who participated in the Lowell wind project hearings found out.

Anyone who wants to intervene “must file a motion to intervene explaining the nature of the interest which may be affected by the outcome of the proceeding,” according to the guide.

The person applying to intervene is encouraged to read the guide and the description of the reasons the board would consider granting intervenor status.

Often, attorneys represent intervenors. But someone who wants to be an intervenor does not have to hire an attorney.

However, according to the guide, the board expects that person or group to have the rights and responsibilities of an attorney.

In complex cases like the Lowell wind project, there were multiple briefs, counter arguments and follow-up briefs filed before and after the technical hearings.

Anyone is not given status as an intervenor can offer comments in person at a public hearing or in writing about the project to the board.

The board usually conducts a site visit and then holds the public hearing, sometimes on the same day.

Sometimes the board has one of its staff attorneys conduct the hearings, depending on the complexity of the case.

Farrell has said that he hopes to have the permits in hand by the summer in time to erect one turbine this fall and the other shortly afterward.

MONTPELIER — A proposed merger of the state’s two largest electric utilities will do more to enlarge profits at a Canadian energy conglomerate than it will to reduce the cost of power to Vermonters, according to recent testimony filed in the case.

In a deal that would consolidate about 70 percent of Vermont’s retail load under one utility, Gaz Metro, the Quebec-based corporation that owns Green Mountain Power, has proposed a takeover of Central Vermont Public Service Corp.

Since executives made public the $700 million proposal last June, GMP has touted the $144 million in merger-related savings that it says would flow to customers over the first 10 years of the deal.

But in 70 pages of testimony filed last week with the Public Service Board, two expert witnesses allege that the promised savings may be “largely illusory.” Furthermore, the witnesses say, the merger proposal prioritizes Gaz Metro profits over ratepayer interests.

And while the deal could ultimately benefit Vermont consumers, the witnesses say, regulators must substantially overhaul the merger proposal to ensure that happens.

“The … proposed shared savings plan is designed to simply enhance GMP’s profits,” writes Michael Gorman, a Missouri-based energy consultant testifying in the case on behalf of IBM.

The proposed merger, according to Gaz Metro, will actually save $226 million over the first 10 years, $82 million of which will be pocketed by the company, leaving the remaining $144 million to be enjoyed by customers in the form of lower rates.

But John Wilson, a Virginia economist hired by the Vermont Department of Public Service to evaluate the Gaz Metro proposal, says simple math hides inequities embedded in the deal.

During the first two years after the merger, Gaz Metro wants to retain 90 percent of the merger-related savings as “extra profit,” according to Wilson. Over the next two years, Gaz Metro holds onto 80 percent of the extra savings. And in years five and six of the deal, the company pockets 67 percent of the savings.

Over six years, Wilson says, the company will use merger-related savings to boost its bottom line by $63.7 million. Ratepayers, meanwhile, will see only about $19 million in savings.

GMP spokeswoman Dorothy Schnure says the savings-sharing structure is designed to help Gaz Metro cover the costs of the acquisition.

“Gaz Metro has to make a significant investment to purchase the company … and in order to merge, it has to recoup those costs,” Schnure says. “If the company were free, then customers could get all the savings right away. But of course it’s not.”

Commissioner of Public Service Elizabeth Miller, however, says Wilson’s analysis reveals an unequal distribution of savings that her department aims to remedy before any merger deal is complete.

Miller underscores the fact that her department “does see a real potential benefit to ratepayers that can result from this merger” — a potential also recognized in Wilson’s testimony. But Miller says there are aspects of the proposal she finds problematic.

“The department wants to see the ratepayer benefits higher than the petitioners have proposed, and we want to ensure that ratepayers see those savings more quickly than Gaz Metro has suggested,” she says.

Gorman and Wilson also question whether the $144 million in savings will ever actually materialize.

According to Gorman, Gaz Metro has sought to protect its own interests by pocketing the bulk of its share of the savings during the early years.

“Most of the savings will not be shared with customers until after the first six years of the merger,” he writes. “Savings projections that far out are … more uncertain and problematic than the shorter-term projections.”

The unreliability of the longer-term savings forecast, according to Wilson, means that “the simple summation of allocated … merger savings estimates over 10 years may not be the most reasonable depiction of relative company and ratepayer merger benefits.”

Schnure says Gaz Metro has “guaranteed” that the $144 million in savings will occur, an assurance she says should alleviate any concerns about the legitimacy of the savings projections.

Gorman, however, says the so-called “guarantee” isn’t sufficient to protect ratepayers’ interests. While Gaz Metro has indicated in filings that it “expects” those merger savings, Gorman says, it has stipulated that if actual savings fall short of that amount, the company “will propose for review and approval a plan for returning the necessary value to customers.”

“Hence, the companies’ proposal represents a best-effort promise rather than a guaranteed level of savings to be credited to customers,” Gorman writes.

The witnesses also question whether savings that Gaz Metro attributes to the merger would have occurred regardless of the acquisition. For instance, Wilson notes that information-technology costs at CVPS grossly exceed industry standards. A due-diligence analysis by the auditing firm KPMG found that, as a percentage of company revenue, CVPS’ IT budget is twice as high as the industry average. And the $36,000 per employee CVPS incurs in IT costs, the audit found, is four times the industry average.

While Gaz Metro has rolled projected IT cost reductions into its “merger-related savings” projections, Wilson says “it seems likely that a substantial part of the company’s estimated post-merger IT cost savings should have been expected to occur independent of the merger, and certainly in less than 10 years.”

Whether the savings are related to the “merger” is of critical financial importance to both Gaz Metro and its ratepayers. Savings that occur independent of the merger are simply subtracted from GMP’s “cost of service” formula, and returned directly to customers in the form of lower rates. If the savings occur as a result of the merger, however, then GMP can divert a potion of that money to its own profit margin.

“This is an example of one way in which the company’s rationale and timing of shared cost savings may unduly favor the company and overstate actual merger benefits accruing to customers,” Wilson writes.

Despite their criticisms, Schnure notes that both Gorman and Wilson “support the merger in the end and see it as beneficial.”

Their support, however, is conditioned on key alterations to the Gaz Metro proposal. Asked whether those recommended changes would scuttle the deal altogether, Schnure said “I don’t know how to answer that.”

“To make this merger work, for us to be able to offer this huge value to Vermonters … we need to structure this merger in this way,” Schnure says.

Miller says the testimony shows the need for heightened scrutiny of certain aspects of the Gaz Metro proposal.

“Aligning shareholder incentives with ratepayer benefit is appropriate, if the merger is one that has a particularly good potential of achieving ratepayer benefits that another acquisition would not achieve,” Miller says. “We think it’s very important that any merger approval is conditioned on a robust verification of merger savings over time.”

peter.hirschfeld@ timesargus.com

peter.hirschfeld@ rutlandherald.com

Speaking of GMP, it was a busy week for our state’s ambitious utility. While CEO Mary Powell toured media outlets promoting the benefits of the CVPS – GMP merger, concerns were building from smaller utilities over control of VELCO, neighbors to a new GMP wind turbine in Vergennes were complaining, and the Lowell debate continued to rage with both court appearances and opinions in the news. Also, tomorrow there is an open house at the Lowell site. Lawyers for the Sterling College students arrested in Lowell argued this week that there was no way for the students to know when blasting was scheduled. Lawyers for Barton Chronicle Publisher Chris Braithwaite asked the Judge to allow reporters to follow police onto private property and to dismiss the case against the publisher. No ruling has been made in either case.

One has to begin to wonder if all this dust getting kicked up by the utility is taking a toll on public opinion. Today’s Rutland Herald Editorial reports Mary Powell recognizes, “Vermont may need to take a breather on new wind projects” after the battle in Lowell. You’ve seen in this email in recent weeks that the voices calling for a slow down or pause of ad-hoc utility-scale energy development in the state are growing and Ms. Powell’s recent comments suggests this may just become the prevailing opinion.

That wasn’t all the wind news this week, the Times Argus ran a website poll that asked users their opinion on ridgeline wind in Vermont. The opinion “Save Our Mountains” won by a significant margin, with an opinion from Northern Power Systems criticizing the poll for presenting the option of building wind and saving our mountains as mutually exclusive.WCAX reported that the Sheffield wind project made its first payment to the town of Sheffield, with local coverage and opinions suggesting there is some squabbling going on over how to spend the money. Also this week, the Biomass Energy Working Group released its final report. The report’s list of recommendations start on page 42.

Do you want to support Energize Vermont facilitating community conversations on Vermont-scale renewable energy development? Contribute today.

Have a great weekend and be in touch if you have news,

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

Rutland Herald Editorial: Renewable progress

Jan 28, 2012 04:49 pm | EV

Below is an editorial reposted here from the Rutland Herald. Published: January 28, 2012   Over the past six years production of wind turbines in the United States has grown by 12 times, according to a report in The New York Times. There are now more than 400 facilities in 43 states, and according to …

comments | read more

    

WPTZ: Neighbor, GMP At Odds Over Wind Turbine

Jan 28, 2012 04:31 pm | EV

Reported here from WPTZ.   VERGENNES, Vt. — A recently installed wind turbine in Vergennes is the first in a Green Mountain Power project targeting smaller community projects, but one neighbor is so upset about it that he wants to move away.   The turbine, installed at the Northlands Job Corps in Vergennes, is 120 …

comments | read more

    

Addison Independent: GMP’s Powell touts advantages of merger

Jan 28, 2012 04:29 pm | EV

Reposted here from the Addison Independent. MIDDLEBURY — Green Mountain Power CEO Mary Powell believes her company’s proposed merger with Central Vermont Public Service Corp. (CVPS) will stabilize utility rates, save customers $500 million during the next 20 years and make the state a stronger place to do business. Powell hammered home that message during …

comments | read more

    

Rutland Herald: Poultney residents get solar farm sales pitch

Jan 27, 2012 11:21 am | alina

Reposted from the Rutland Herald. POULTNEY — A local nonprofit group advocating for local renewable energy projects hopes to motivate residents to consider constructing a small-scale community solar project in Rutland County. Representatives of Energize Vermont held an informational meeting with local residents at Poultney High School on Wednesday about the possibility of building a …

comments | read more

    

Times Argus Opinion: Wind poll too narrow

Jan 27, 2012 11:21 am | alina

Reposted from Times Argus. The online poll you issued last week on utility-scale wind in Vermont typifies what is wrong with our debate. Two of the choices you presented: “let’s do it” and “save our ridgelines” are not mutually exclusive choices; and presenting them as such stymies thoughtful debate around our energy future.   No …

comments | read more

    

Caledonian-Record: Lowell Wind Opponents Expand Outreach

Jan 27, 2012 11:21 am | alina

Reposted from Caledonian-Record.   ALBANY — Lowell wind opponents will have their third open house on the mountain Sunday, this time followed by a question-and-answer session at Albany Community School. Like the first two open houses last fall, the opponents will begin the afternoon at 12:30 p.m. with a hike for those interested up the …

comments | read more

    

WCAX: Students bring solar power to Middlebury College

Jan 27, 2012 11:21 am | alina

Reposted from WCAX.   Four girls from four different states only three semesters into college teamed up to make a big difference. “You either had to write a paper or we had to do a project in Vermont or in Middlebury and we really wanted to do a project and have an impact on the …

comments | read more

    

WCAX: Ferrisburgh students win solar panels for school

Jan 27, 2012 11:21 am | alina

Reposted from WCAX.   Savvy students-turned-salespeople at Ferrisburgh Central School have earned the school a new array of solar panels. The school participated in a program sponsored by Green Mountain Power that challenged local schools to sell energy efficient fluorescent light bulbs within their community. The school that sold the most light bulbs per student …

comments | read more

    

Caledonian-Record: Wind Protest Arrests: Blasting Warnings Questioned

Jan 27, 2012 11:21 am | alina

Reposted from Caledonian-Record.   NEWPORT CITY — The defense fired holes in the state’s case Thursday morning against two Sterling College students accused of violating a court order barring anyone from being near blasting at the Lowell wind site last fall.   And the presiding judge raised sharp questions of his own in the hour-long …

comments | read more

    

Caledonian-Record: Chronicle Publisher Wasn’t Trespassing

Jan 27, 2012 11:21 am | alina

Reposted from Caledonian-Record.   NEWPORT CITY — Defense attorney Philip White asked Judge Robert P. Gerety Jr. Thursday to set a precedent and say that journalists can follow police onto private property — whether or not the property owners approve. White, representing Chronicle Publisher Chris Braithwaite, said in Orleans Superior Court-Civil Division that the public …

comments | read more

    

Newport Daily Express: Journalist Wants Charge Dismissed in Lowell Wind Project Case

Jan 27, 2012 11:21 am | alina

Reposted from Newport Daily Express. NEWPORT – A motion hearing was held Thursday morning on the case of the journalist who was arrested while covering a protest on Lowell Mountain. Attorney Phil White representing Chris Braithwaite, Publisher of the Barton Chronicle, had filed a motion to dismiss. Judge Robert Garety, Jr. asked both parties if …

comments | read more

    

VTDigger: Net metering bill gets preliminary approval from lawmakers

Jan 27, 2012 11:21 am | alina

Reposted from VTDigger.   A bill that would make it easier for more people to generate their own electricity received overwhelming approval in the Vermont House of Representatives Tuesday. House Bill 475, which increased the capacity for so-called solar net metering systems, will give people with solar panels on their homes more credits on their …

comments | read more

    

VTDigger: State plans $15 million for new energy lab at UVM

Jan 27, 2012 11:21 am | alina

Reposted from VTDigger.   Editor’s note: This story by Devin Karambelas was first published in the Vermont Cynic on Jan. 19. If Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has his way, Burlington could become the nation’s capital for energy research. Sandia National Laboratories is partnering with the Vermont state government, Green Mountain Power and Vermont businesses to …

comments | read more

    

WCAX: Sheffield wind project pays town

Jan 27, 2012 11:21 am | alina

Reposted from WCAX.   Vermont’s newest commercial wind farm is starting to pay dividends. Earlier this month the town of Sheffield received a check for $117,000 for hosting the First Wind project. The 16 turbines started producing power in October.   The project is obligated to pay $520,000 a year for the life of the …

comments | read more

    

Press Republican Opinion: Wind projects often divisive

Jan 27, 2012 11:21 am | alina

Reposted from Press Republican.   It seems improbable that a group of Vermont environmentalists are challenging the construction of a wind farm, but that just points out the sensitivity of the whole wind-power issue.   A project in the Green Mount National Forest in southern Vermont calls for the construction of 15 windmills. They would …

comments | read more

    

Burlington Free Press Opinion: My Turn: Better planning needed for wind projects

Jan 27, 2012 11:21 am | alina

Reposted from Burlington Free Press.   There is a fundamental problem with the way that wind farm development is occurring in our mountains, resulting from a lack of planning, which would provide citizens and regulators with a better opportunity to know where these projects may be sited in the future.   On other issues Vermont …

comments | read more

    

VTDigger: Testimony shows rifts in Green Mountain Power, CVPS merger proceeding

Jan 27, 2012 11:21 am | alina

Reposted from VTDigger.   Municipal and cooperative utilities are concerned about who will control the state’s transmission utility — Vermont Electric Power Company (VELCO) — should the state’s two largest utilities merge. The smaller “munis” and co-ops urged the Vermont Public Service Board to prevent the new large entity — Green Mountain Power — from …

comments | read more

    

Barton Chronicle: Letters to the Editor, Utility Merger, and Derby Wind Project Compensation

Jan 23, 2012 02:42 pm | alina

This week’s Barton Chronicle included relevant Letters to the Editor, coverage of the merger between Vermont’s two largest utility companies and coverage of discussion concerning Holland residents’ potential compensation for the wind project in the neighboring town of Derby.  Download the relevant pages in PDF format.

comments | read more

    

Over the past six years production of wind turbines in the United States has grown by 12 times, according to a report in The New York Times. There are now more than 400 facilities in 43 states, and according to one consulting group, the industry will support 78,000 jobs this year.

The solar industry is also growing, according to the same report. The number of solar installations in the third quarter of 2011 exceeded the number for all of 2009. A federal cash-grant program that awarded $1.76 billion has helped to create 22,000 solar projects, and it is estimated that an extension of the cash-grants will create an additional 37,000 jobs this year.

These numbers suggest why President Barack Obama has continued to emphasize the importance of renewable energy, both as an innovative way to achieve energy independence and as a job creator. “Because of federal investments, renewable energy use — sources like wind and solar — has nearly doubled,” Obama told a crowd in Colorado this week. “Thousands of Americans have jobs because of those efforts,” he said.

Some of those jobs are in Vermont. Green Mountain Power has been busy on the ridgeline of the Lowell Mountains clearing the way for about 20 wind turbines it will install in one of the most ambitious wind projects in the state. When completed, it will provide power enough to meet the needs of 20,000 average homes — equal to a potential capacity of about 63 megawatts.

The project has been enormously controversial because of residents in Lowell and surrounding towns who view development of the Lowell mountaintop as a desecration. Critics of wind power also note that wind generation creates only intermittent power, not base-load power that is needed for 24-hour electrical generation. They also say the project was dependent on the subsidy provided by the federal government.

Green Mountain Power has felt the heat. Mary Powell, president of GMP, acknowledged in a recent conversation that Vermont may need to take a breather on new wind projects to assess how and where to proceed after the battle in Lowell. At the same time, she views the Lowell project as a major asset for the company and for GMP customers. After the wind turbines are up and running, the company expects it to produce a sizable amount of nonpolluting power at a low price for years to come. It is the cost of putting renewable infrastructure in place that has required federal intervention.

And yet the cost of wind and solar technology has fallen rapidly in recent years. Promoters of renewable energy have long argued that the way to bring the price of the technology down is to increase demand so that the unit price of the machinery drops. It is like the manufacture of cars. It is cheaper to build a Ford than a Bentley, partly because Ford mass produces its cars.

Federal subsidies have helped stimulate demand for the technology, bringing down the price and further stimulating demand. And yet reluctance in Congress to continue the subsidies has caused the wind and solar industries to plead that now is not the time to pull the plug. The subsidies have helped get the industry off the ground, with those thousands of jobs, and the rush to sustainable energy will slow if Congress discontinues the subsidies.

Free market purists sneer at the idea of subsidies. They believe that if wind and solar are worthwhile investments, the market will reward them. They ignore the enormous subsidies that have benefited the nuclear and fossil fuel industries. The energy industry is far from the level playing field that is the premise of free market ideology; indeed, subsidies for renewables can probably be considered a way to make the playing field more level, not less.

Obama is right to press for an expansion of home-grown renewable energy, both for the sake of our economy and of the climate. Vermonters will continue to be sensitive to the treatment of their mountains, but there are renewable options remaining to be explored.

VERGENNES, Vt. — A recently installed wind turbine in Vergennes is the first in a Green Mountain Power project targeting smaller community projects, but one neighbor is so upset about it that he wants to move away.

The turbine, installed at the Northlands Job Corps in Vergennes, is 120 feet and 10 percent of its energy goes to Northlands in return for the land use. GMP officials said they had more than 60 proposals for similar turbines and planned to install more across the state.

Michael Mammoliti, who lives next to the turbine, said that he’s upset over his new neighbor, though. Mammoliti sent several letters of complaint to GMP and the state, but officials said that he did not meet a deadline to force a public meeting on the turbine.

Mammoliti’s complaints included noise, disruption to wildlife and the stirring up of pollen that was affecting his health.

A GMP official said that the health issues were unfounded and there was no perceived threat to wildlife. The company agreed to conduct a noise survey in the coming months to address Mammoliti’s other complaint.

“It’s a gearless wind turbine, specifically designed to work in communities (and) to be very quiet,” GMP spokesperson Dorothy Schnure said.

Mammoliti said that he didn’t believe the company and that he wanted to move because he was so upset about the project.

“I feel like selling, moving away. I don’t want to be here anymore. I’m just tired,” Mammoliti said.

Schnure said that the city of Vergennes and Northlands wanted the project and that almost everyone in the area was supportive of it. GMP is working to choose the site of the next community turbine to be installed soon.

Read more: http://www.wptz.com/news/30308854/detail.html#ixzz1kgQWeKVx

MIDDLEBURY — Green Mountain Power CEO Mary Powell believes her company’s proposed merger with Central Vermont Public Service Corp. (CVPS) will stabilize utility rates, save customers $500 million during the next 20 years and make the state a stronger place to do business.

Powell hammered home that message during a recent interview with the Addison Independent, during which she shared her vision for the combining of GMP and CVPS under the ownership of the Canadian company Gaz Métro. She has been making the rounds to area media hubs in an effort to get the word out on the proposed merger and the effect it would likely have on consumers and jobs.

“I feel like when you’re trying to do the kinds of things we’re trying to accomplish for the state, it’s important to be out and about as much as I possibly can,” Powell said.

“It is a lot of change for a small state.”

The Vermont Public Service Board has been receiving testimony on the Gaz Métro’s proposal to acquire GMP and CVPS, a move that would give the Quebec-based firm dominion over the delivery of around 75 percent of the state’s electricity. Powell anticipates the PSB will start conducting hearings on the merger in late March, with the prospect of a deal taking effect this June.

While making her rounds, Powell has had an opportunity to ask various stakeholders, and likely interveners in the PSB hearings, how they feel about the proposed merger.

“I always asked them, ‘Are you opposed to the merger?’ and every single one of them has said, ‘Absolutely not, we think it’s great; it makes sense,’” according to Powell.

Supporters believe the deal will make the combined utility a leaner, more effective organization.

There are currently around 540 workers at CVPS and 205 at GMP. Thanks to the anticipated retirements of some of the companies’ many veteran workers, Powell does not envision the need to lay off any employees as a result of the merger.

Powell has not established a specific workforce target for the combined company, but said “We’ve been on the record to say … over five or six years, we’ll harness 25 percent to 50 percent of the attrition.”

At the same time, Powell said the company (through attrition) will be able to shed duplicative administrative, legal and other personnel while maintaining a strong presence of linemen and call-center people on the front lines. Joint purchasing will also save money, she noted.

“For such a small state, we pay so much extra money for inefficiencies that don’t contribute to quality,” Powell said.

Critics of the merger acknowledge the potential efficiencies, but point to the virtual monopoly that the new utility giant will have in the energy industry in Vermont. In addition to the prospect of providing the majority of the state’s electricity, critics note that Gaz Métro already owns Vermont Gas, the only provider of natural gas in the state. Vermont Gas recently confirmed plans to extend its natural gas pipeline from Chittenden County into Vergennes and Middlebury.

Powell acknowledged the concerns, but noted the state regulates electric rates. The utilities therefore cannot name the price for their product, unlike the private sector.

She also believes the extent of the merged utility’s power is being overestimated in some circles.

“Even combined, we will be the second-smallest investor-owned utility in the country, so we are Vermont-sized,” Powell said. “We are serving 225,000 customers, which is smaller than the majority of municipal utilities as well as the majority of cooperative utilities. We are still small and approachable.”

And while the CVPS/GMP company will have the lion’s share of the state’s electricity market, Vermont will remain home to 18 different utility companies, according to Powell, who adds that Gaz Métro plans to take a hands-off approach when it comes to its new acquisition.

STABLE RATES AHEAD

Powell also said she believes the future looks good for stable electricity rates in Vermont, thanks to the state’s recently negotiated deal with HydroQuebec and a new 20-year GMP pact with the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant in New Hampshire. The Seabrook pact is to kick in later this year and is intended to supplant power that had flowed from the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in Vernon. The state Senate voted in 2010 against a license extension for Vermont Yankee beyond 2012, but a federal judge late last week ruled the plant can remain open. State officials — who have voiced concern about the aging plant’s condition and recent on-site mishaps — are expected to appeal the judge’s ruling, and the Department of Public Service also has an important voice in the matter.

“For us … because of our Seabrook deal, we are neutral (about Vermont Yankee),” Powell said — before news of the federal ruling on the Vernon plant. She said GMP negotiated a better rate with Seabrook than had been offered by Vermont Yankee.

“If they pull a rabbit out of a hat, they are going to have to offer some incredible deal to the utilities and probably, on a merged basis, we would have some opportunity if there was this great deal with the state,” Powell said. “But we don’t need them.”

Plans call for GMP/CVPS to ramp down the percentage of nuclear power that makes up its total energy portfolio.

“We take roughly 100 megawatts from the plant now and we are going to drop down to somewhere to 55 to 60, and it will go down from there,” Powell said.

At the same time, plans call for the company to increase its renewable energy portfolio. GMP has been building a series of wind turbines on Lowell Mountain, which have drawn some opposition, and is looking for additional solar, wind and hydro opportunities, according to Powell.

“We will actually be at 20-percent premium renewables by the time our Kingdom Community Wind (Lowell Mountain) project comes on line, so we will be one of the leaders in the country, between the number of premium renewables in our portfolio and as a result of HydroQuebec being designated a source of renewable power,” Powell said. “We’ve always been about ramping up renewables.”

Reporter John Flowers is at johnf@addisonindependent.com.

NEWPORT CITY — The defense fired holes in the state’s case Thursday morning against two Sterling College students accused of violating a court order barring anyone from being near blasting at the Lowell wind site last fall.

And the presiding judge raised sharp questions of his own in the hour-long hearing, asking about how the students Nov. 16 would have known whether blasting was to occur near the wind construction site.

Defense attorney Kristina Michelson requested the motion to dismiss hearing, arguing that the state didn’t have enough evidence to even charge Trevor Ring and David Martorana with contempt of court in the first place. She asked Judge Robert P. Gerety Jr. to dismiss the contempt charges on the spot.

Gerety did not. He said he would issue a ruling very soon.

The hearing Thursday comes more than a month after blasting ended on the Lowell ridgeline near the property of Don and Shirley Nelson. Protesters tried to stop the blasting last fall by standing within the 1,000-foot blast safety zone that lapped over onto Nelson property, prompting Green Mountain Power to go to civil court to get a preliminary injunction to stop the protests.

The injunction language had to be changed twice before local law enforcement officers would attempt to enforce it.

The court order set up a two-hour advance window before each blast, marked by a warning whistle and an all-clear whistle afterwards.

But once the court order was issued, GMP began an accelerated schedule of blasting — as often as once an hour. GMP got what it wanted, finishing blasting near the Nelson property by the beginning of December.

At the time, protesters lamented on their website that blasting times were so close together that there was no time during daylight hours in which they could go near the blast safety zone without jeopardy of arrest.

Protesters such as Dr. Ron Holland of Irasburg, one of the six later arrested for blockading construction vehicles on the wind site and charged with trespassing, warned deputies that the court order was poorly crafted. He told them it would be impossible to enforce.

Holland made that prediction before the students were charged.

Ring and Martorana were warned Nov. 9 about the civil court order establishing the blast safety zone.

On Nov. 16, they were found by deputies within the zone and were arrested and charged with contempt of court. Lamoille County Sheriff’s deputy Claude Marcoux said the pair was not given a chance to leave that day since they had been warned before and blasting was only a few minutes away. He didn’t know if they knew the blast schedule that day.

Michelson said that the state had not proved that the two were connected to the Nelsons or the protesters. And she said that the state had not proved that there was sufficient warning as called for in the court order each time that blasting was about to occur.

Gerety put the question directly to Marcoux, who was on the stand to testify about the arrests.

Gerety asked how the defendants would have known the time of the blasting.

“I don’t know,” Marcoux said.

He showed the judge a warning sign of the type posted on the steep trail that protesters had used to reach the ridgeline area. But Marcoux didn’t know if a sign listing the upcoming blast schedule was posted there.

Michelson asked him if such a sign would be reasonable, and Marcoux agreed.

Orleans County Deputy State’s Attorney Sarah Baker, who was challenged repeatedly during the hearing by Michelson about evidence and questions to Marcoux, asked how deputies would notify everyone in the blast safety zone if a blast was imminent.

Marcoux said deputies would have to scour the whole 1,000-foot safety zone each time to find every individual. That, he said, would be difficult because some of the protesters were like “mountain goats.”

Michelson asked Marcoux why the deputies didn’t just warn everyone in the zone each time there was a blast scheduled and ask them to leave.

Marcoux said that would have delayed blasting indefinitely because when one person would leave, another would arrive every five minutes.

Ring, after the hearing, said he is getting help from a donation fund for the cost of his defense. He was pleased with the way the hearing went.

“I feel a lot better after today,” Ring said.

Martorana said the charge against him did have an impact on his time at Sterling, where he is studying sustainable agriculture. He said he couldn’t participate in the movement opposing the wind project.

About 20 people attended the hearing in support of the students.

David Rodgers, who was charged with trespassing like Holland, praised the students.

“They became an inspiration to us,” he said.

And Rodgers and Holland said that GMP made a mistake with the arrests of Ring and Martorana and later with Chronicle Publisher Chris Braithwaite, charged with trespassing for covering the blockade.

“GMP really messed up in terms of their public relations,” Rodgers said.