The makeshift wind turbine erected in front of the Statehouse, emblazoned with the governor’s last name, was the first hint. Then there were the sign-bearing protesters flanking the Statehouse doors.
Inside, in the halls of the Statehouse, the cafeteria and committee rooms, scores more were dressed in bright green vests to highlight their presence and emphasize the danger they feel.
Wednesday brought the biggest show of force yet by Vermonters upset with the state’s siting process for energy projects. What has in recent years been a relatively small group of wind opponents has grown into a legion of people worried about wind and solar, including town leaders from across the state.
“Now, it’s being taken more seriously,” LuAnn Therrien said of the opposition. Therrien has spent years speaking against the Sheffield wind project, which she said drove her family out of town.
The proliferation of solar projects around Vermont has changed the volume of the opposition, said Mark Whitworth, who is with the organization Energize Vermont. The group has long opposed decisions about the siting of wind projects, and it now finds new friends opposed to suggested solar sites. “That is what really has lit a fire under this energy rebellion. When it was wind in the Kingdom, it was pretty easy for people in other parts of the state to ignore it,” Whitworth said.
Now, many town officials are also fired up. The Vermont League of Cities and Towns, not exactly a rebellious organization, joined in Wednesday’s event. Nearly a dozen local officials testified to legislative committees about how their towns have spent thousands of dollars and still feel powerless during the process to determine renewable energy sites.
“We’ve been inundated with solar,” Russ Hodgkins, Westminster town manager, told the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee on Wednesday. He said his town supports renewable energy, but the locations chosen so far are taking prime agriculture and industrial sites out of the economy. “There’s not one of them that’s in a great location.”
Whether this growing throng of rebels will get their way is another matter. While they are railing against what they consider poorly sited projects, Gov. Peter Shumlin has been touting the growth of renewable energy and the jobs it brings.
Wednesday’s events — hours of meetings with the Senate and House Natural Resources and Energy committees and a noontime press conference and rally — were organized by Sen. John Rodgers (D-Essex/Orleans), author of a bill calling for a ban on industrial wind projects.
“In 1968, Vermont passed a landmark anti-billboard law,” Rodgers told those gathered for the press conference. The “billboard ban is what inspired me to do what I’ve known to be right for years, and that is introduce S. 210, to ban industrial wind from Vermont.”
Prospects for a ban seem as weak this year as in previous years, however. “We’ll listen, but I think the problem with that proposal is we have an orderly development process,” said Sen. Chris Bray (D-Addison), chair of the Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee.
Bray insists, though, that he’s working on changes that will help, at least on the solar front. “That is the most urgent need we are responding to,” Bray said.
His committee is putting together a bill — S.230 — that he hopes will offer incentives to build solar projects in specific locations and direct the Public Service Board to consider town plans in approving projects. Changes coming to the state’s net metering regulations will also likely slow down the proliferation of solar projects, he said.
Bray’s House counterpart, Rep. Tony Klein (D-East Montpelier), said he’ll await the Senate’s bill, but he agreed changes to energy-project siting should be made this year, even if there is not yet agreement on what those should be. He said, “There’s a pretty clear message that towns do not think they’re being heard.”
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Just because NIMBYs endlessly repeat their heartfelt opposition to wind turbines, solar fields, and anything else they don’t wish to see, and just because their anger and frustration has convinced them that their psychosomatic responses are real, doesn’t mean that they’re right. It doesn’t mean that they win the public policy debate and that the rest of the world should just do what they want us to do. Crying longer, louder, and more often doesn’t mean you’re right and that you win.
I invite you to watch this 30 minute video testimony from neighbors of the Georgia Mountain, Lowell and Sheffield wind projects https://youtu.be/3KtlBXyD7w4
I saw a child standing in the front row at the press conference holding a sign asking for wind turbines to be banned. It may be one of the many children who live within a mile of the proposed Swanton Wind development. Yes, young people are concerned about the loss of local control and the undemocratic process Vermont has established for renewable energy development.
I hope you will learn more about what people are concerned about. It is not about being against renewable energy. The system people seem to want to support is broken, and the best way to learn that is to engage in it. I have been doing it. It is brutal. It enriches lawyers. Why the industry supports it is incomprehensible. Do you really think we need lawyers to decide how to screen solar projects?
I have to agree with ConcernedVTer. It is clearly not about health effects. Even if the turbines make some noise, many people live in more urban places with regular noise levels greater than a wind farm 1/4 to more miles away. They do fine. There are utility substations in the state which have a much greater concentration of electric current flowing than a wind farm. It is about aesthetics and wanting the landscape to look like it always did.
In the meanwhile, even if we reduce our energy conmsumption by 50%, which I want us to do as quickly as possible, we need to supply the other 50% with renewable energy. Right now, we get about 4% of our power from in-state renewables.
Hydro-Quebec flooded vast areas of wilderness and ended the way of life for many first nations people in Quebec to build there huge dam projects. This is not the same as Vermonters not liking the view of wind turbines or solar farms. Communities in West Virginia see their entire hill sides removed so mining companies can get at the coal underneath. Other communities world wide see their water being contaminated by natural gas fracking operations. Vermont just closed VT Yankee which WAS emitting radiation as part of its regular functioning. We need renewable energy as fast as we can get it. Yes, we should consider impacts on wetlands and endangered species and all of the other environmental concerns that are ALREADY BEING considered in the permitting of all of these projects that a vocal minority of people are against.. We need to get to 90% renewable earlier than 2050. 90% by 2030 is a realistic goal if we want to keep temperature rise below 2°C.
Opponents don’t have a leg to stand on, except rhetorical. Turbines & solar, though not as pretty to look at as fields & hills, do *not* remove land from the economy. They are the economy. The future energy economy is in renewables, not just their presence, generating energy industry jobs and construction jobs, but their manufacture & support by local companies. What is probably unproductive land is becoming productive.
YoungVermonter, I appreciate your passion for stopping pollution, which is why I have gone vegetarian. I’m sure you are educated enough to know that is the NUMBER 1 way in which we can achieve an immediate reduction in our carbon footprint!
Industrial Wind development in Vermont is a very bad idea.Why, Professor Ben Luce, Professor of Physics and Sustainability Energy Studies at Lyndon State College, who was instrumental in developing industrial wind energy projects in New Mexico, and now lives in Vermont, is AGAINST industrial wind development in Vermont…and here’s why: it doesn’t fit our landscape. More cons than pros. Too close to people and wildlife protected areas. And (get this!) not enough wind to make it feasible!
Find out more here: (if you dare!)
https://vimeo.com/15594006
I take umbrage to your comment about it being about aesthetics. Every single testimony given yesterday at the statehouse, and in every news story written, it’s pretty clear opponents are calling for better siting so it doesn’t affect people’s health. And big blades & turbine motor components are produced in China, where the dirty carbon footprint to develop them, bring them here, and erect them is so huge, there’s practically a net-neutral gain. We can do better.
And we will.
I believe in small-scale renewables, better efficiency-measures and….(unbelievably so!): LESS CONSUMPTION
.
Better get used to unplugging your computer more. That’s the future.
Vermont has been known for its Green Mountains and its scenic beauty. These translate into large amounts of tourist dollars spent in the state.
Back before Young Vermonter can remember VT did not want this spoiled by billboards and we were on the leading edge passing anti billboard legislation to preserve our views for all to enjoy. I grew up in the Northeast Kingdom and when I go back to visit I find the wind towers in Lowell an eyesore and to me they ruined the view of the area.
The developers of wind want to be able to develop over objections of the local towns and villages and this highhandedness is at the crux of the problem. Our lovely mountains were something those of us older enjoy and wan to keep as we have tired to keep them for decades.
It is this treatment of local residents as not able to understand such a complicated problem and they will get wind and they better like it mentality that is found hardest to digest.
Just so it’s understood, there are many Vermonters who are happy with the amount of solar and wind being built in the state, and want to see more. If we are going to take responsibility for our energy needs, and do whats right for the planet, we are going to have to get use to seeing where our energy comes from. The people who live near the tar sands in Alberta are not complaining about the eye sore of an open mining pit. Their complaining about the contaminated drinking water, or the fact that they can’t grow food on their land anymore. It is disheartening that we are letting aesthetics get in the way of solving one of the largest humanitarian crises that we have ever seen.
My generation has committed its life to tacking climate change. I was in the state house and didn’t see a single supporter of this ban on wind that was under the age of 35.
Here is a “time line” showing the history of Wind Turbine Noise problems, going back as far as 1979. Each entry provides documentation:
http://cdn.knightlab.com/libs/timeline/latest/embed/index.html?source=0Ak2bgr7C0nhPdGR3S1lEekU3T3p4ZDhUNDdRV2Y2ZkE&font=Bevan-PotanoSans&maptype=toner&lang=en&height=650
1979 “First complaints received from a dozen families within a 3km radius of turbine”.
1981 “Wind turbine operation creates enormous sound pressure waves”
1982 “Closed windows and doors do not protect occupants from LFN”
1982 “NASA research on human impacts provided to wind industry”
1985 “Hypothesis for infrasound-induced motion sickness”
1987 “Wind industry told that dB(A) unsuitable to measure LFN emissions from wind turbines”
…
2004 “Wind industry knows noise models inadequate” (from Vestas)
…
2011 “Vestas knew that low frequency noise from larger turbines needed greater setbacks”
thank you for trying to save Vermont