Governor-elect Phil Scott wants to push lawmakers for a ban on industrial wind projects next year, but said this week he would settle for a temporary moratorium.
He might have a hard time getting either.
“We just passed — literally in June — Act 174,” Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee chair Chris Bray (D-Addison) said. “I really want to stay with and develop that planning process.”
Bray was referring to a new state law designed to give municipalities more say in siting energy projects.
Scott pledged during the election to push for a moratorium on large-scale wind projects, a heated issue in some parts of the state. This week, speaking to reporters at a press conference, he said he hopes for legislation to pass next year.
He was already hedging his expectations. “What I personally would like to see is to protect our ridgelines in perpetuity,” Scott said. “The reality is that won’t happen.”
Still, Scott expressed hope that he could convince legislators to agree to a short-term halt on wind projects.
Bray wasn’t willing to call Scott’s idea dead, but his objections indicated it’s highly unlikely that the Democratic majority would go along. “You run the risk of gutting the planning process,” Bray said.
Though developers expect the pace of wind projects to slow in Vermont, renewable-energy advocates will fight a moratorium simply to fend off the precedent.
Olivia Campbell Andersen, executive director of the trade group Renewable Energy Vermont, said her members will argue that a moratorium would be a job-killer for Vermont companies in the wind field. “These are local jobs,” she said.
If Scott fails to persuade the legislature to enact a wind moratorium, he will still have other powers at his disposal as governor, though perhaps nothing that is foolproof.
Simply issuing an executive order banning wind projects isn’t an option. At least, that’s what former governor Jim Douglas’ staff learned from a 2003 inquiry about doing just that.
In an email to Douglas’ staff, Public Service Board chair Jim Volz advised that an executive order would violate state law that gives the board authority over such decisions.
But Volz did advise Douglas’ staff that the Public Service Department could reject most projects. To do that, Volz advised, the department would have to establish evidence that a project doesn’t meet the state’s criteria.
“I don’t think that would be too hard in most instances because of the potential negative aesthetic and economic impacts,” Volz wrote. But he added, “Even then, there might be some projects that would meet the criteria, so a true moratorium would not be guaranteed.”
Scott is due to appoint a Public Service commissioner, who will be in charge of the department, before he takes office January 5. In February, he also has a chance to pick a new Public Service Board chair.
Correction, December 15, 2016: Olivia Campbell Andersen’s name was misspelled in an earlier version of this story.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Thanks for the link to an article about wind turbines at ski areas. It tells me that maintaining a safe distance from them is needed. But it also talks about a resort that does have turbines and skiers are limited to 800 feet from them which seems reasonable and something our ski area could do. I’d like to see more consideration of ski areas as sites for wind ower.
Chris Bray is a very nice person and I’m sure I’d enjoy having dinner with him, but as chair of the Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee for two years, people on numerous issues, not just wind, have experienced a lack of honesty. Respect is earned, and instead of earning it, he has thrown good people away, after investing many hours attempting to work with him. My comment is not about a disagreement with him on the issues, it is about how he has run his committee with an agenda that has interfered with our democratic process. His comments in this article continue the charade of claiming success in giving towns more say in the planning process, while in real life the legislation he is responsible for is what is gutting the planning process by creating great confusion and interfering with the work of volunteer planners all over the state.
@ Moses:
“Why is anyone giving Chris Bray the time of day on this topic? He has no compassion or concern for the harm being done to people or the environment by big wind turbines. He is also delusional”
I am not necessarily a big fan of industrial wind turbines on ridgelines in Vermont, but if this isn’t a personal attack on a legislator, for the sole reason that he has a difference of opinion from Ms. Smith about wind power, I don’t know what is. “No compassion”? “No concern”? “Delusional”? That’s not a personal attack on Bray? And this attack is probably more understated than her usual diatribes against anyone who supports wind.
Tom Bisson, here is your answer about why wind turbines will never be built on ski area summits http://www.vnews.com/Ski-Resort-Expansion-…
I don’t see “nasty personal attacks” on anyone, Eddo, or whatever your name is. I think that Shumlin and all his renewable buddies including Bray, Klein, Burns, and Richey Whatever have shown very little compassion for the people who live near these wind disasters. As they say,” if you can’t take the heat…etc.” then don’t be a legislator. If Bray’s feelings are hurt so be it. There are many of us that would like to see him retire.
I’d like to see wind projects located on the summits of ski areas. There would be several advantages to this. 1. There would be little if any additional environmental impacts since these mountains are already developed and have infrastructure in place. 2. Ski areas are incredibly energy-intensive operations with a heavy carbon footprint. Wind-power makes sense as a way to reduce this footprint. 3. There is always lots of wind at the summits of ski areas. This idea makes such commonsense that I assume there are good reasons why it hasn’t already been done, but I can’t think of them.
I’d like hear more detail about these so-called VT jobs that Eddo refers to? Are they at places like NRG, which makes parts and components for many various industries, not just wind, at the National level? A company like that is not in the slightest dependent upon VT’s small wind projects. Please provide specific info, if you could.
To the best of my knowledge these large towers in VT are manufactured out-of-State, installed and maintained mostly by technicians from out-of-State, and the energy credits and profits largely go to companies from out-of-State.
There are places wind makes sense. The Midwest and Southwest, offshore, even Ellenberg, NY, where very large projects can be built. Vermont’s ridges are not only fragile, but they’re our State’s identity. We went to great pains to protect them from the Green Mountain Parkway in the 1930s, why are we destroying them now?
Nasty personal attacks on legislators working for us don’t help your cause. I have Vermont friends and family who have good paying jobs working in the wind power field, and none of them drive snow plows for out of state technicians or clean up oil spills.
Act 174 was nothing more than a true whitewash. It was an attempt to make the Legislature appear like it was addressing the problems with Big Wind, while it actually did next to nothing. It has no teeth. Towns still have virtually no say when it comes to PSB decisions, and those residents affected by these giant turbines have even less.
Even Renewable Energy Vermont privately admits to the major problems associated with Big Wind…the significant environmental damage, the roads on our ridges, the impact upon wildlife, the noise, etc. However they won’t say this publicly. Instead, their main focus now is just on solar.
I was pleased fhat Ms. Hallenbeck did mention that Scott’s hands are not tied. His appointments for a Public Service Commissioner and PSB Chair have the potential to change the State stance on this issue. Both took direction from Shumlin, and even groups on the left felt these organizations were corrupted and the process broken. Look no further than VT Gas…regardless of the lies and inaccuracies the company presented, the PSB always gave them the OK, and at times even shut-out the public from participating.
Good article, Terri.
Why is anyone giving Chris Bray the time of day on this topic? He has no compassion or concern for the harm being done to people or the environment by big wind turbines. He is also delusional if he thinks the planning process that the Shumlin administration has put in place is working. It is not playing well in public. And seriously, a job killer? Like the ones who mop up the oil in the nacelles? Or plow the roads so the service technicians who fly in from out of state to do the maintenance? Sorry, the wind industry is not about jobs. Well, except for the four lawyers who make lots of money making sure that no problems get addressed and instead people suffer.