Town rebuffs wind turbine developer 

Residents of the Bennington County town of Stamford fought back against an aggressive, well funded-wind tower proposal and won on December 7, when the developer announced it had dropped the project.

“Today, Norwich Solar, manager of the Stamford Main Renewables wind turbine proposal, announced the application to the Vermont Public Utility Commission will not move forward,” a statement said.

It’s rarely possible to know the ultimate reason why a company drops a project. What’s clear is that the Town of Stamford did their research, covering all possible bases to understand the legal process, the violations, and what their citizens desired. During the review process, Act 250 violations on the land for the access road for the proposed wind tower were identified and are now under enforcement. The proposed site had been excessively cleared to make way for a wind monitoring device. The construction of a 1 mile road through a high priority forest into the site possibly requiring the construction of a bridge was a major expense. What’s more, the wind industry is experiencing declines in return on investments due to increased capital costs, inflation, and supply chain issues.

Annette Smith, Executive Director of Vermonters for a Clean Environment (VCE) has a track record of helping many communities understand their rights and the process involved in successfully opposing projects of this scale that do not align with the town’s goals and values.

VCE engages to raise the voices of Vermonters, bringing environmental justice and corporate accountability to Vermont communities since 1999.

Smith was integral in helping the community of Stamford understand the regulatory process and how to participate effectively. This project did not meet the stated goals of the town’s enhanced energy plan or the Bennington regional plan. It didn’t meet the mandatory one-kilometer setback requirement, which would have placed the turbine in dangerously close proximity to many homes. It also was not sited in the area specified for preferred wind tower placement as determined by the town.

“Norwich Solar is giving Vermonters the perfect example of how to turn people against renewable energy,” Smith said in a VDC interview. For example:

1. Find a site two years ago in a town whose village has views of a ridgeline full of Massachusetts wind turbines, in which the Vermont town had no say. Don’t tell anyone.

2. Get a Standard Offer Contract a year ago. Don’t tell anyone.

3. Clear cut forest and install a wind measurement device and gather data for a year, Don’t tell anyone.

4. Meet with regional planners and choose to ignore Town and Regional Plans that mandate a setback of 1 kilometer from year-round residential buildings.

5. Make it clear the project will proceed giving the finger to Town and Regional Plans that will receive Substantial Deference from the Public Utility Commission.

6. File an advance notice giving the community only 45 days before filing the Petition, file (twice) for extensions of the Standard Offer Contract deadline for filing the Petition, file another 45 day advance Notice for a wind measurement tower.

7. Create a confusing mess in the regulatory process with four different Public Utility Commission cases.

8. Attend town board meetings but don’t answer questions.

9. Disrupt sales and construction plans in the nearby development during a housing crisis.

10. Give the town the challenge of raising $100,000+ to participate at the PUC, consuming the lives of the community for more than a year.

Those who have been involved in proposals for industrial wind projects in Vermont know Martha Staskus of Norwich Solar. Staskus was involved in the Holland, Swanton, Irasburg, Pittsford Ridge Vermont wind project proposals, all of which became highly contentious and eventually failed.

Staskus was also project manager for the Georgia Mountain Wind Project, working for David Blittersdorf, owner of AllEarth Renewables who sued the neighbors to keep them off their own property, and then threw dangerous flyrock during blasting. The Department of Public Safety inspected the site and found large amounts of flyrock on the neighboring property large enough to cause harm. The project was fined three times for running the turbines under icing conditions in violation of its winter operating protocol.