[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

when your community is targeted

Get weekly updates

RSS feeds and more

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate via Stripe

Donate via Paypal

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links


Press Releases


Campaign Material

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups

Wind Watch is a registered educational charity, founded in 2005.

News Watch Home

UPC Wind Hearings Get Under Way At Public Service Board 

Technical hearings before the Public Service Board began Monday to determine if UPC Vermont Wind should receive a certificate of public good to erect 16 420-foot-high wind turbines in Sheffield.

The hearings are scheduled to continue for two weeks.

Key witnesses Monday were UPC representatives Dave Cowen, Steve Vavrik and Scott Rowland. They fielded questions from a bank of lawyers representing the Department of Public Service; the Agency of Natural Resources; the Ridge Protectors, a group of citizens opposed to the project; and the King George School, a private high school also opposed to the turbines.

Lawyers for the towns of Sutton, Sheffield, Barton and Barton Village were also present.

UPC has changed its plans twice since applying for a CPG early in 2006. The latest plan before the PSB calls for 16 turbines in Sheffield. Two planned for Sutton have been withdrawn.

But the town of Sutton is still fighting the project because residents say they will be affected more by the turbines than their neighbors in Sheffield. Residents of Sheffield voted in favor of the turbines and the town has an agreement with UPC to support the wind developer’s efforts in exchange for yearly payments of up to $550,000 to the town.

UPC also has a project in Mars Hill, Maine, and this project was part of the discussion Monday. A photograph of the installation of one turbine was entered into evidence, showing the impact on the land. Scott Rowland said the picture showed the most extreme clearing during the project.

“There is no way, shape or form that this is typical,” Rowland said. “Unfortunately it has been widely distributed as typical.”

Rowland said this particular turbine was sited on very steep terrain and a lot of earth had to be cut and filled to make a level area for the turbine. “The worst case scenario in Sheffield would be half of turbine 9 in Mars Hill,” he said.

Barclay Johnson, a lawyer representing the Ridge Protectors and King George School, asked about noise. He cited the Mars Hill Web site as stating no noise would be heard. He also cited a newspaper article from the Bangor Daily News which stated complaints have been made and the Maine Department of Environmental Protection is investigating. Johnson’s attempt to place the article in the record as evidence was denied by the PSB after Andrew Raubvogel, attorney for UPC, objected. Raubvogel said newspaper stories are not technical information and called the story “hearsay and unreliable.”

After putting their heads together, the board members said the article was not the type of information used by the board.

Daniel Hershenson, representing the town of Sutton, wanted to know who the principals of UPC were. “We just want to know who the petitioner is,” Hershenson said. “Who are the members of the limited liability company?”

UPC representatives declined to answer the question and were backed up by the board.

“Who the investors are is not relevant,” board member John Burke said.

Hershenson also wanted to know the assets of the company. Steve Vavrik said the only assets the company has are its leases, which include 3,000 acres. Hershenson asked if UPC had a survey map of these lands, to which he was told, “nothing that we know of.”

Raubvogel objected, asking if the project was entirely in Sheffield, why is the question relevant to Sutton.

“Without a survey, how do you know the project doesn’t flow over into Sutton?” Burke said.

The three members of the PSB include Burke, David Coen and Chairman James Volz. Future testimony will touch on aesthetics, impacts on wildlife, wetlands and bird and bat mortality rates.

By Jeanne Miles
Staff Writer


This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial educational effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Contributions
   Donate via Stripe
(via Stripe)
Donate via Paypal
(via Paypal)


e-mail X FB LI M TG TS G Share

News Watch Home

Get the Facts
© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.


Wind Watch on X Wind Watch on Facebook Wind Watch on Linked In

Wind Watch on Mastodon Wind Watch on Truth Social

Wind Watch on Gab Wind Watch on Bluesky