VPPSA looks to develop wind on East Mountain

BARTON — The trustees’ Monday night meeting was again dominated by the discussion of wind power. This time, however, the project discussed was more favorably received by those present than the Sheffield project has been.

The meeting opened on a good note with Kristin Webb presenting the trustees with a $1,000 grant match for the Barton Memorial Building’s Restoration and Revitalization fund.

But the meeting quickly heated up when Vermont Public Power Supply Authority (VPPSA) representative, Patty Richards, began to discuss a new opportunity for a wind project.

The proposed project is three wind turbines to be built on 17 acres on top of East Mountain in East Haven. Currently the proposed site is home to an abandoned government radar station.

Richards opened by showing the trustees the gaps that will appear for Barton Electric when the contract with Hydro Quebec ends in 2012. Richards said the best way to fill the gap is through diversity, not relying on any one type of power or one contract to make up the difference. She said the best way to do this would be through small contracts and developing energy projects, such as the one she was presenting.

Richards discussed the new legislation, known as the S.P.E.E.D. Law (Sustainably Priced Energy Enterprise Development). Barton would need 1,522,632 kilowatt hours (kWh) generated by renewable resources to meet this requirement. Richards said that the proposed project would create 1,088,157 kWh, the rest of the needed kWh would be produced by the new hydro unit already in place.

Richards asked the trustees for the okay to go ahead with the next phase of development, which would be to look into exact costs of materials, construction, permitting, a bird and bat test, and other necessary costs.

“We want to get hard numbers so we can come back to you with exact costs so you can decide if you want to participate or not,” Richards said.

The site was originally scoped out for such a project by Matt Rubin, project manager for East Mountain Demonstration Project (EMDC). The group did all the research into this project but did not do a bird and bat study so they were denied a Certificate of Public Good from the Public Service Board. VPPSA is currently renting the property in order to continue research into its wind project. If VPPSA decides to go through with the project it will buy the property.

The cost of the analysis will be rolled into the final project cost if the company decides to go ahead and build, Richards said. If VPPSA goes ahead with the project it will look into grants and stimulus funds available for such projects. Whatever the total is after funding has been deducted, will be divided between the companies served by VPPSA. This translates into a four percent share for Barton Electric, Richards said. If Barton Electric decided not to participate, its share of the analysis cost would go to whomever bought Barton’s share in the project, she said.

Richards explained the only way Barton would be liable for the analysis cost outright would be if the project was not built. In this case VPPSA would spread out the cost over a period of time with a one- to two-year period before the cost would begin to be billed.

Both trustees Robert Ferlazo and EllisMerchant expressed concern about the proposed 20-year debt if the project was to go through. They both stated that they were worried about maintenance and replacement costs, as they had heard with the Sheffield wind project that 20 years was the typical life span of turbines. Richards said that blades and a few other parts may have to be replaced from time to time but the turbine bases would be a one-time cost.

Merchant asked if VPPSA was “willing to stick their necks out” in light of the controversy the Sheffield project has created. Richards said that the area of this proposed project has already been developed, is five miles from the nearest neighbor, and that Lyndonville residents have already stated they would rather see wind mills in place of the rusted buildings they can see on East Mountain now.

Trustee Scott Wright made a motion to vote on proceeding with the analysis, Merchant seconded the motion. The motion was passed with a 2-1 vote. Ferlazo voted against it.

Another agenda item that brought some comment from residents in attendance was the write-offs of delinquent electric bills. This year’s list totaled over $10,000. Denise Valley expressed her surprise at the large amount.

“How could we let it get this high?” Valley asked. Trustees explained that many of the bills were between three and 10 years old and had been sent to collections.

“Many of these people have moved and we don’t know where they are,” Town Clerk Lucy Gaboriault said.
Valley said she thought the auditor should be more diligent in following these delinquent bills and collecting them. She also mentioned looking into getting a new auditor.

There had been requests to re-look at the decision for the tree trimming bids. Merchant was asked to sit out as this concerned his tree trimming business, E.M. Tree Care. Some companies that submitted bids had said there was confusion with how the ad stated bids should be received. Ferlazo said that the ad should have stated that bid prices should be for a three-man crew per hour and the ad should mention that contractors can come to the meeting. But review of prices still left E.M. Tree Care as the best bid, so the decision stood.

The last item discussed in the open meeting was First Wind developments. Ferlazo said that the newest amendment to the project is that First Wind got all three shipping companies that they work with to agree to put up the $1 million bond the village is asking for, if their company is chosen. Ferlazo said trustees will discuss the amendment at the next meeting after they have had a chance to go through it in depth.

The open meeting was adjourned at 8:02 p.m. and the trustees moved into executive session to discuss litigation over the town truck.

By Tabitha Armstrong
Lifestyle Editor

The Newport Daily Express

15 July 2009

Tags: Wind power, Wind energy

The copyright of this article is owned by the author or publisher indicated. Its availability here constitutes a "fair use" as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law as well as in similar "fair dealing" exceptions of the copyright laws of other nations, as part of National Wind Watch's effort to advance understanding of the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development. For more information, click here.

---

« Later Post • News Watch Home • Earlier Post »