[ exact phrase in "" ]

[ Google-powered ]

LOCATION/TYPE

News Home
Archive
RSS

Subscribe to RSS feed

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Sign up for daily updates

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links

Alerts

Press Releases

FAQs

Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics

Videos

Allied Groups

In wind-sensitive Windham, energy siting bill disappoints  

Credit:  By Mike Faher | May. 19, 2016 | vtdigger.org ~~

Officials from the town of Windham have become familiar faces in the Statehouse, where they’ve argued repeatedly that towns should have a bigger role in deciding where energy projects are built.

But now that the Legislature has approved a bill addressing that issue, Windham Selectboard Chairman Frank Seawright is less than impressed.

Seawright and his wife, anti-turbine activist Nancy Tips, say S.230 doesn’t go far enough in ensuring that local concerns are taken seriously. And they aren’t convinced that further planning and studies called for in the bill will make much of a difference at the local level.

“How many hoops should a community have to jump through?” Tips asked.

To which Seawright added, “and for how long a time?”

It’s a big issue in Windham, where the town plan’s in-depth energy section bans large wind turbines. A plan by developer Iberdrola Renewables to build the state’s largest turbine site in Windham and Grafton has spurred intense debate.

Vermont’s official goal is to obtain 90 percent of the state’s energy from renewable sources by 2050. State officials have been encouraging development of renewable generation such as solar and wind, touting the environmental benefits as well as the economic upside.

There has been increasing friction, however, with those who worry about the impacts of rapid, large-scale renewable energy development on the environment and on homeowners.

S.230, approved on the final day of the 2016 legislative session, attempts to address some of those concerns. It includes a goal of “identifying areas suitable for renewable energy generation.”

The bill is designed to give local officials more say in determining where those areas are. Via a complex and still-evolving process, the state will be able to bestow a “determination of energy compliance” on regional and town plans that delineate where projects should and should not go.

Plans that receive that determination then will get “substantial deference” when the state Public Service Board is considering an energy project.

State Rep. Mike Hebert, R-Vernon, served on a conference committee that finalized S.230. He said the bill is a compromise, but he believes that giving town and regional plans “substantial deference” is an improvement in the state permit process.

“It took a lot of work to get to that point,” Hebert said. He added that, currently, “the Public Service Board doesn’t have to do much more than acknowledge that (a town) has an energy plan.”

Windham’s ban on large wind turbines is “based on the unique topography and settlement patterns of our town, our 10 years of research and knowledge and the support of the majority of our residents and property owners,” according to the town plan.

Yet Iberdrola’s proposal has spurred intense debate as proponents and opponents debate the potential environmental and financial impacts. The project is expected to be the subject of votes in both towns this year.

Twenty of the 28 windmills planned at Stiles Brook Forest would be in Windham. Given that there already has been tension between Windham’s municipal plan and state regulators, the question is whether S.230 will allow the town’s plan to override Iberdrola’s plans.

The answer, Seawright and Tips say, is probably not.

For one thing, the “substantial deference” standard for local concerns is not absolute: S.230 says a local land policy will apply “unless there is a clear and convincing demonstration that other factors affecting the general good of the state outweigh” the town or regional plan.

Additionally, Seawright and Tips don’t believe that the state’s renewable energy goals are realistic or good for Vermont’s environment. But it’s clear those goals must play a role in local planning if municipal and regional officials hope to gain a determination of energy compliance from the state.

“Basically, everything tumbles from (the state’s goals), and there’s no way out. It’s just plain crazy,” said Tips, a member of Friends of Windham, a group that opposes the Stiles Brook project.

She dubs S.230 “a total nightmare.” Seawright takes a slightly softer stance, believing that the bill could give the town plan more authority in renewable energy development – though it’s unclear how much.

“There has to be a chance,” he said. “I just don’t think it’s as great as lots of us would hope for.”

S.230 also attempts to address a specific concern that’s been cited in the Stiles Brook wind debate: How much sound can large turbines generate?

On or before July 1, 2017, the bill says, the state Public Service Board must develop rules governing sound emanating from wind generation facilities. That includes uniform sound standards as well as “a methodology for determining sound levels and measurement locations for each such facility on a case-by-case basis.”

Tips still sees a battle ahead on that front. “We’re going to now have to go and struggle for every decibel in their sound standards,” she said.

Even with the passage of S.230, Seawright isn’t sure Windham’s battles have led to much change at the state level. But he believes more state officials are hearing from residents who are concerned about renewable energy permitting.

“I do think that they are clearly aware by now that the rivets are starting to pop,” Seawright said. “People are really unhappy about this … and people are better able to analyze the situation.”

That’s a point not lost on Hebert, who is pledging further attention to the issue if he is re-elected.

Even as a member of the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee and S.230’s conference committee, Hebert said the siting bill didn’t include everything he wanted: He would have preferred to give towns outright veto power on an energy project.

“It’s a good first step,” Hebert said. “We need some more work to be done.”

[rest of article available at source]

Source:  By Mike Faher | May. 19, 2016 | vtdigger.org

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

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User contributions

Share:


« Later PostNews Watch HomeEarlier Post »

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook

Share

CONTACT DONATE PRIVACY ABOUT SEARCH
© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.
Formerly at windwatch.org.

HOME
Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook

Share