Wind Power Struggle Crosses Political Boundaries
Sep 27 - Vermont Business Magazine
During a debate this spring in the Vermont House on the potential merits and demerits of wind energy, Representative Michael Obuchowski said this emerging controversy "tests our values" and touches upon Vermont's "heart and soul."
Development of this form of renewable energy on a commercial scale entails a
variety of concerns widely shared by Vermonters: preservation of the state's
mountainous landscape; encouragement of green entrepreneurship; furtherance of
Vermont's leadership in addressing national and global environmental problems.
Seldom do these objectives come into conflict with one another. But that is what
is happening in the case of largescale wind-power projects, and the competing
interests are proving difficult to reconcile.
Citizen groups have sprung up in at least three parts of the state in
opposition to proposed wind projects that, they claim, will blight local
landscapes, result in little or no net reduction in air pollution, and do
nothing to lower Vermonters' electricity bills.
Environmental organizations and private businesses favoring the projects say
that opponents' objections are illinformed or extremist. These advocates of wind
power argue that the projects will have a minuscule impact on Vermont's scenic
splendor, will give substance to the state's rhetorical commitment to combating
global warming, and will help make Vermont's power supply more secure and
affordable.
Feeling political pressure from both sides, the administration of Governor
James Douglas has adopted a cautious approach that pleases the opposition camp
and distresses wind-power developers, including the state's two largest
utilities. Douglas last month (July) appointed a seven-member commission to
study the issue and to report its recommendations for state policy by
mid-December.
Articulating his middle-of-the-road stance, Douglas declared, "We need
to encourage conservation and the development of renewable energy sources. But
this must be done within a reasonable regulatory framework that is consistent
with our environmental and aesthetic ethics and protects our ridgelines from
haphazard development."
At present, the wind-power debate is focused on three sites - two in southern
Vermont and one in the Northeast Kingdom. Proposed projects are furthest
advanced in these areas, but exploratory work is under way on three more
ridgelines, and additional initiatives will likely take shape quickly if
Douglas' study commission reports findings favorable to wind developers.
At Searsburg, Green Mountain Power has been operating Vermont's only
functioning wind-energy unit for the past seven years. The 11 turbines whirring
at this facility produce six megawatts of emission- free energy, enough to
provide electricity to more than 2000 average Vermont homes.
Believing it has demonstrated the advantages of this project, Green Mountain
Power has outlined plans to erect 22 more wind turbines at the Searsburg site.
Catamount Energy Corporation, a non-regulated subsidiary of Central Vermont.
Public Service, meanwhile hopes to build 27 turbines on a ridgeline of Glebe
Mountain in Londonderry. The 50- megawatt capacity of this project could meet
the electricity needs of more than 18,000 Vermont households.
In the. Northeast Kingdom, windpower developers have asked the Public Service
Board to approve a demonstration project involving four turbines on the summit
ridge of East Mountain. This six- megawatt facility would be expanded to include
50 turbines in accordance with a long-term plan offered by East Haven Windfarm,
the company sponsoring the project.
Initially, the site would supply about one-third of the electrical power used
by the village of Lyndonville. Ultimately, according to developers, the project
could meet half of the Northeast Kingdom's total demand for electricity.
Measurements of wind speeds arc being carried out at three other sites,
including Little Equinox Mountain in Manchester, where Catamount Energy seeks to
codevelop a five-turbine wind farm.
Central Vermont Public Service, Catamount's parent company, was once a global
pioneer in efforts to harness the wind as an energy source. In the early 1940s,
the Rutland-based utility built what was then the world's largest windpower
facility atop Grandpa's Knob in Castleton. The small turbine supplied power to
the local grid for a few months during World War II, but it was removed from
service in 1945 after a rotor broke off.
UPC Wind Partners, of Lowell, MA, has erected an anemometer on Hardscrabble
Mountain in Sheffield, and may install two more wind- measurements towers in the
same area.
Up to 26 wind turbines could be built along ridges of the Lowell Mountain
range by a partnership made up of the Vermont Public Power Supply Authority,
Vermont Environmental Research Associates, and enXco Inc, a French firm.
Waterbury-based Vermont Ervironmental Research Associates has installed two
wind-measurement towers on Lowell Mountain and is also working with Green
Mountain Power on the proposed expansion of the Searsburg facility.
The six projects now at various stages of development in Vermont are part of
the growing wind-energy industry throughout the developed world. Catamount, for
example, has recently formed a partnership with a Japanese company, and is
involved in wind projects in the United Kingdom, Texas and several northeastern
states.
Due in part to recent technological advances in turbine design and storage
capacity, wind-power output has more than tripled in the United States in the
past five years, with Texas generally considered the leader in development of
this form of renewable energy.
But the United States still accounts for only about 15 percent of the 40,000
megawatts of wind capacity worldwide. A few European countries have progressed
much further in generating electricity from the wind. Denmark, for example,
already derives about 15 percent of its total electrical power from wind
projects.
Proponents of wind energy say it could supply up to 20 percent of Vermont's
electrical power in the coming years. Such an increase in renewable,
nonpolluting energy generation would be especially timely, the advocates add,
because the state could lose two of its major sources of electricity within the
next 15 years. The Vermont Yankee nuclear plant could go off-line by 2020, and
Vermont's contract with Hydro Quebec is due to expire by then as well,
But wind-energy advocates are generally careful not to oversell their case.
They note that wind, by itself, cannot resolve Vermont's energy uncertainties.
"I don't think any one renewable energy resource will provide most of
Vermont's electricity," says John Zimmerman, head of Vermont Environmental
Research Associates. "But as we move away from nuclear, large-scale
hydro-power and coal, we will find that a lot of small-scale renewable sources
will together make a big difference."
Most environmental groups in Vermont support commercial development of wind
power in the state, at least in theory, because of the potential contribution it
can make in reducing global warming and in helping Vermont secure its own
sources of energy.
At the same time, some of these groups acknowledge that commercial wind power
raises environmental issues of its own.
In addition to the potentially negative aesthetic effects of tall wind
turbines, some Vermont environmentalists express concern about the projects'
possible impact on wildlife. Studies in the United Kingdom suggest that the
whirring turbine blades could kill thousands of migrating birds and bats.
But most Vermont activists argue that, on balance, wind projects do much less
environmental damage than do power plants that burn fossil or nuclear fuel.
Wind power is also a key component of the "Green Valley" yision for
Vermont economic development advanced by Lieutenant Governor Brian Dubie and
State Treasurer Jeb Spaulding. Just as California's Silicon Valley became the
center for the information technology industry, Vermont is being touted as the
potential home-base for companies involved in environmental technology,
including renewable- energy development.
Some businesses of this sort already based in Vermont have been growing
quickly. Among them is Northern Power Systems, a Waitsfield firm that designs
and builds renewable-energy facilities throughout the world. Northern Power has
steadily increased its payroll in recent years and now employs about 120
Vermonters. But company president Jito Coleman says that Vermont is not being
true to its image as an environmental innovator.
"This state should be in a leadership position in the development of
wind energy, but it's not," Coleman says. "And that's very
disappointing to a lot of Vermonters."
Many proponents of wind power are critical of the Douglas administration,
which, they say, has failed to give crucial backing to the nascent industry.
"Here's an industry that wants to invest $200 million, $300 million,
$400 million in the state, and it's getting a cold shoulder," complains Ron
Perchlik, director of Renewable Energy Vermont. "Any other industry with
this kind of promise and potential benefit to the state would get red-carpet
treatment."
Perchlik's Montpelier-based group serves as a tr\ade association for
businesses involved in renewable energy development.
The Douglas administration's reluctance to promote wind-energy development is
causing discomfort among potential investors in Vermont projects, adds Robert
Charlebois, managing director for Catamount Energy.
"A rational investor is unwilling to go forward in an uncertain
environment such as we have here in Vermont," Charlebois says. "There
are states tangential to Vermont that are much more welcoming to wind projects,
and this is what we find so disappointing."
Dave Rapaport, vice president of East Haven Windfarm, says that the Douglas
administration's lack of enthusiasm for commercial wind projects is surprising,
"given the governor's embrace of economic development, permit reform and
electricity-rate reduction."
Power generated from the wind is already cheaper than other energy sources
available to Vermont, Rapaport says. Development of in-state wind energy will
reduce utility rates, he adds, while also citing financial benefits in the form
of lease payments and tax revenues
"For example," Rapaport says, "our power purchase agreement
with Lyndonville Electric Department gives them electricity from our East
Mountain project at a 5 percent discount below market rates - 10 percent if you
add in the value of the Renewable Energy Credits we will give them. We believe
that we could give anybody the same deal on future projects."
The proposed East Haven development, presented to the Public Service Board
for review last year, has been delayed for at least several months due to a
state decision to require studies of the project's effects on bird and bat
migration.
In any event, Douglas' move to appoint a study commission means that no
permits for commercial wind projects will be issued until 2005, at the earliest.
And the administration has already made clear its intention of barring
large-scale wind energy projects on the 346,000 acres of state-owned land.
In a draft policy statement released in June, the Agency for Natural
Resources says "the environmental impacts associated with large-scale wind
energy development are not fully understood at this time. This makes it
especially problematic to consider such uses on ANR lands."
The draft policy, due to be finalized in August, is based on a series of
public meetings held earlier this year that generated what the governor
described as "often impassioned comments." It was another indication
of how the issue of wind power elicits sharply differing views of Vermont's
character - or its "heart and soul," as Obuchowski put it last spring.
The former Speaker of the House made that reference in a speech in which he
warned that wind turbines would disfigure the state's ridgelines.
Even some sponsors of wind-power projects concede that the new generation of
more efficient, 330-foot-tall turbines could have negative visual consequences
when erected at elevations of 2,500 feet or more. Towers of that height must be
lighted 24 hours a day in accordance with federal flight-safety regulations.
Opposition groups argue that the turbines will destroy "view sheds"
around the state and, in the process, reduce property values.
Vermont's overall economy will also suffer if projects like the 50-turbine
East Haven windfarm are allowed to go forward, argues Katie Anderson, a member
of the Kingdom Commons Group. Existing state review mechanisms for wind projects
are not adequate to address their potential impact on "the Vermont brand,
which is the essence of the state's tourism industry," Anderson says.
Supporters of the East Haven project say the initial set of turbines will be
built more than six miles away from the closest permanent habitation and will
thus be barely visible in settled areas. The project site is about 30 miles
north of St Johnsbury
The Kingdom Commons Group, formed last year to fight the East Haven project,
also bases its opposition on what it says will be clearcutting needed to carve
out roads and transmission lines for the wind facility.
Opponents further warn that commercial wind turbines could remain eyesores
even after they have ceased to function. The groups therefore urge that
windpower developers be required to set aside funds to pay for the
decommissioning of the facilities once their lifespan has come to a close.
Seeking to counter claims about wind power's environmental advantages, the
Kingdom Commons Group says that electricity generation in Vermont is already
"extremely clean." Fossil fuel sources (oil, natural gas and coal)
currently account for only 3 percent of Vermont's power demand at peak periods,
according to this assessment.
But the Kingdom Commons Group does not take account of the environmental
consequences of the state's heavy dependence on nuclear power.
Wind energy cannot be used for "base-load power needs" in Vermont,
the group adds, because wind turbines have no capacity for storing energy when
the wind is not blowing and must be turned off when wind speeds exceed a
specified range. Wind-energy proponents dispute that assertion, saying the new
generation of turbines can produce power nearly all the time.
Don Nelson, a retired dairy farmer living within view of the Lowell Mountain
test site, rejects claims that wind projects in Vermont will bring about a
reduction in air pollution from conventional power plants. Under a system of
so-called green credits, Nelson notes, utilities in other states are permitted
to continue buying specified quantities of power from fossil fuel- burning
plants by investing in renewable-energy projects such as Vermont wind farms.
Projects such as the one proposed for the Lowell range in the Northeast Kingdom
serve as "enablers for utilities in other state to keep polluting New
England," Nelson says.
Opponents further maintain that Vermont's existing review procedure for
commercial wind-power facilities is inadequate.
Utility projects in Vermont, including windfarms, are treated differently
from all other types of commercial development in that they are not necessarily
subject to local planning regulations and do not have to undergo an Act 250
review. At present, the Public Service Board decides whether to issue a
certificate of public good, which amounts to a permit for a large-scale utility
project, based on a set of criteria contained in Section 248 of a law governing
review of such projects. The criteria in Section 248 are similar to those of Act
250, Vermont's chief landuse law.
But the groups opposing commercial wind projects are demanding that the
proposed developments be required to undergo a full Act 250 assessment in
addition to the Section 248 review.
Developments such as a shopping mall or the Circumferential Highway are
subject to a well-defined set of standards that do not apply in the case of
commercial wind projects, says Jim Wilbur, cochair of the Glebe Mountain Group.
"There are virtually no standards for how close these things can be put
to someone's property, for how much noise they can make, or how much they can
disrupt migration patterns and human activities such as skiing or hiking,"
declares Wilbur, whose 170-acre property in Londonderry is near the site of
Catamount Energy's proposed Glebe Mountain wind project.
The suitability of the Section 248 process is among the issues to be weighed
by the state's wind-power study commission. In explaining the mission of the
study group, Douglas noted, "Vermont's rural and rugged beauty is defined
by its ridgelines, and Act 250's founding, in part, was the result of
wide-ranging concern about unfettered ridgeline development. If we are going to
entertain applications involving large commercial generation facilities on
Vermont's mountains, we need to be certain that the regulatory process can
adequately manage and evaluate such proposals."
Sponsors of the proposed projects point out that the sites on Glebe Mountain,
East Mountain and at Searsburg already have infrastructure in place and that
extensive clear-cutting would not be needed.
The Magic Mountain Ski Area is near the Glebe wind-power site, and a disused
US Air Force radar installation is at the site where the East Haven windfarm
would be built.
As for the aesthetics issue, developers of the existing Searsburg project say
that surveys found the local public to be more accepting of the development
years after the turbines started operating.
"Some people find the sight of windmills quite attractive," says
Charlebois, of Catamount Energy. "Aesthetic concerns are, by definition,
subjective. One person's aesthetic objections is another person's piece of
art."
Wind turbines offer the opportunity, for those who wish to take it, of
actually seeing where electrical power comes from, notes Coleman, of Northern
Power Systems.
"People are just so disconnected from their energy sources now," he
says. "I can't believe the opponents really understand what they're talking
about when they complain of the aesthetic effects of turbines, because how many
of them have actually seen a wind turbine?"
Activists such as Anderson and Wilbur say they have made it a point to visit
sites where wind turbines are currently operating. Those assessments have led
Wilbur to view wind projects in the context of their specific size and location.
Some facilities are more suitable and less offensive than others, he says.
Objections to projects such as the one proposed for Glebe Mountain might be at
least partly defused, Wilbur adds, if sponsors were to pay impact fees to. local
towns.
A wind power project's local economic impact does have a major effect on
public attitudes, Charlebois agrees. The general public acceptance of the
Searsburg project can be partly explained, he says, by the fact that it pays
property taxes but uses almost no local services. Others note that the 11
turbines now operating at Searsburg are significantly smaller than those
proposed for other sites and also are not lighted at night.
Wind farms should be s\een as similar, in a sense, to dairy farms and
sugarbushes, says Rapaport, of East Haven Windfarm.
"Wind is another element in Vermont's rural working landscape," he
says. "It's one of the ways that we harvest our natural resources."
Copyright Boutin-McQuiston, Inc. Aug 01, 2004