[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Get weekly updates

when your community is targeted


RSS feeds and more

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate via Paypal

Donate via Stripe

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

Hardball in Vermont; environmental fight turns nasty 

Credit:  Saturday, March 23, 2013, vnews.com ~~

The reputation of Vermont as the home of genteel politics took a hit recently when prominent environmentalist and businessman Jeff Wolfe delivered an unmistakable message to state Sen. John Campbell of Hartford that the game being played is hardball – or maybe moneyball.

In a letter posted on Facebook earlier this month, Wolfe, co-founder and board chairman of White River Junction-based groSolar, excoriated Campbell for supporting a pending bill that Wolfe contends would not only spell the end of the renewable energy industry in Vermont, but also negatively affect middle class prosperity, human and environmental health, and recreation. That Wolfe, a Strafford resident, feels strongly about this may be inferred from the fact that he suggested that by supporting S.30, Campbell was playing the dupe of the notoriously conservative Koch brothers, with their “well documented” funding of anti-renewable-energy efforts.

(This news perhaps came as a surprise to Campbell, a moderate Democrat who is the Senate president pro tempore in arguably the most liberal state in the nation.)

The bottom line? “John,” Wolfe wrote, perhaps channeling the Koch brothers himself, “I’ve supported you for a lot of races. But if you support this bill, not only does that support end, but I will help recruit and support opposition to you in the next election, and will put my money where my mouth is.” Thus does the blunt instrument replace the hidden dagger. We suppose that’s progress of a sort.

Anyway, given the tone of the letter, it was a little surprising to learn that what the bill would do is require energy generation projects of 500 kilowatts or more to conform to Act 250 criteria. The practical effect of this would be to give local communities more say, through their town plans, in the permitting process.

So what kind of an environmentalist wouldn’t want development projects subjected to scrutiny under the provisions of Vermont’s venerable land-use law? From what we can tell, certainly not all environmentalists, but rather environmentalists who, for example, want to erect on Vermont ridgelines large wind energy operations – the very type of project that has bitterly divided the state’s environmental community.

Wolfe’s argument is that anything that increases the regulatory burden on renewables will slow and make more expensive their development, thus setting back efforts to combat climate change, and “any bill that does that in Vermont is a bad bill … .”

An indignant Campbell postponed a scheduled Senate vote on the bill, which he continues to back, because for procedural reasons he would not have been able to vote on it this week. He says he supports “renewable energy, there’s no question … but if we are going to have to do something to interfere with the iconic nature of our ridgelines, then we need to make sure they are for the public good.”

Indeed we haven’t seen yet a convincing case that large-scale wind energy can play a significant role in reducing carbon emissions in Vermont, which would be the only rational basis for sacrificing a landscape that plays such an important role in the state’s economy and self-identity. And the ability of towns to exert some control over their destiny when it comes to development is not something that should be lightly overridden.

It might make sense for the Senate to wait until a commission formed by the Shumlin administration to study siting of energy projects reports back this spring with its recommendations before taking action on this.

Whatever the merits of the bill, though, this crude attempt to intimidate leaves an ugly scar on the political landscape.

Source:  Saturday, March 23, 2013, vnews.com

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 Funding
   Donate via Paypal
(via Paypal)
Donate via Stripe
(via Stripe)


e-mail X FB LI TG TG 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