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!
Annette Smith:
knowyourassumptions did a nice job of responding to your substantive comments about wind (at 11:04 AM today). Thanks. I too have answered all of these points in considerable detail in various outlets over the years, so I wont repeat myself here.
But I will respond to this: Had windustry lovers been willing to discuss the problems and see if we can find solutions, we wouldn’t be in this position. You two commenters are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
I have engaged in extensive dialogue with opponents of what you call industrial wind. I have tried hard to keep my comments factual, to validate everything I say before I say it and, when necessary, to substantiate it by citing valid scientific literature. I have done this concerning many of your claims on many different occasions. Ive always done my utmost to refrain from making or responding to personal attacks. Thats not always easy.
To my eyes — apparently not to yours — that looks like a willingness to discuss problems.
Ive often been a pretty lonely voice in doing this. Others join me for a while and then give up, clearly frustrated by the fact that wind opponents simply repeat the same clearly false points over and over.
What I do is quite time consuming, and not something everyone has patience for. Unlike you, I am not paid for this. I happen to enjoy it, which is fortunate for me.
But Ive got to tell you that it comes as no surprise whatsoever that few of your opponents want to enter into dialogue with you. Its just possible that responsibility for the problem does not reside only with your opponents.
Annette Smith:
You keep accusing me of not offering solutions. Vermont has a relatively small load of 1000 MW It is entirely reasonable for our small communities to establish microgrids and power our regions with small generation sources.
No, Annette, it not even close to reasonable. I did the math for you in a previous comment. Making ridiculously generous assumptions, residential solar is going to get you, at best, 60 of those 1000 MW. So below, I asked you to tell us where the remainder will come from.
Instead of an actual response, you complain that I don’t like my [your] answers. Ill be as clear as one can be: its not that I dont like your answers; its that you havent provided any. Meanwhile, Vermonters continue to consume power, which doesnt come from the power fairy.
So your plan is to provide 60 MW using residential solar (Bravo! I agree) and allow the remaining 940 MW to come from current sources: mostly, fossil fuels, nuclear, and HQ.
Since you dont have an even vaguely realistic plan to supply Vermonts needs, you simply cede the environmental discussion to the status quo when you oppose all proposals for change while leaving the existing utility structure in place. Ive said this to you before, and I know neither you nor your followers like to hear it.
But while youre dithering and complaining, the power remains on; and the sources are clearly worse from an environmental perspective than those you spend your time opposing. There are lots of studies which when Vermont media didnt impose word limits, I cited for you to back up my statement. Anyone interested can simply Google environmental studies of generating sources to begin reading some. Every one Ive seen comes with an extensive bibliography.
A note about Chris Bray–
My neighbors and I approached Chris about an industrial solar project that was proposed on adjoining property. He came to the initial meeting at my neighbor’s house, but that was as far as it went. We found him to be unresponsive, evasive, and uncaring.
We and the Town of New Haven intervened in the PSB proceeding. I ran into Chris at the supermarket and told him that we just discovered that DPS had negotiated a secret deal with the developer behind our backs and without considering any of our evidence. He appeared sympathetic, and admitted that DPS “should have let the process play out.” Yet he did nothing. We also sent him numerous emails that he ignored. We later found out that he was ridiculing us behind our backs in Montpelier.
If Chris had told me up front that he would not support us, I would not like it, but I would respect it. I have no respect for an elected official who smiles to your face but then completely ignores you, and even works against you. That’s cowardice in my book.
Act 174 is a whitewash. The PSB will give a town plan “substantial deference” only if it is directly, or indirectly through incorporation into a regional plan, approved by DPS. No regional plans are in the works. And I learned the hard way through our intervention that DPS heavily favors developers and has no regard for the public. I don’t know if Chris sincerely thought he was benefiting towns or if this was just a Machiavellian pretense, but his avid support for solar developers and the fact that he completely ignored–and even mocked–his own townspeople make me highly suspicious. In any event, Act 174 is worthless as it stands now.
We’ve heard that story a billion, gazillion times. From you. You repeat the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Everyone’s heard all of your arguments against wind power. Repeatedly. Just because your anti-wind position didn’t prevail at the PSB doesn’t mean everyone didn’t hear your arguments. Good day.
Ask Don and Shirley Nelson what wind energy has done to their lives. Oh wait, they can’t tell you because Green Mountain Power made them sign a gag under when they sold their farm to get away from the wind turbines that were making them sick. Read Shirley Nelson’s diary here, it’s in the public record http://vce.org/ShirleyNelsonNoiseDiaries20…
And have a heart, please.
“wind . . . has destroyed some people’s lives.”
That allegation is very scientifically and medically questionable, at best.
“Had windustry lovers been willing to discuss the problems and see if we can find solutions, we wouldn’t be in this position.”
I believe this is false. Based on your hundreds and hundreds of shrill, absolutist anti-wind postings, I do not believe you would have accepted any compromise whatsoever with any industrial wind proposals. Nice try.
“Wind energy . . . requiring fossil fuel back-up in the form of new gas plants.’
So does tapping into the New England grid, which your so-called “microgrid” non-solution will also require.
“This technology will be obsolete soon because of the rapid advances in solar.’
You have also opposed solar farms.
Your “solution” is to build absolutely nothing, anywhere near anybody, anytime, ever, turns the lights off, and shut down our industrial economy.
John and whoever you are. You keep accusing me of not offering solutions and then when I ask you for your ideas, you continue to attack me and claim my “ask” is disingenuous, while offering more vague references. Vermont has a relatively small load of 1000 MW in a regional grid with 25,000. It is entirely reasonable for our small communities to establish microgrids and power our regions with small generation sources. You don’t like my answers, and claim you support environmentally friendly wind. This is what ridgeline wind looks like https://vermontersforacleanenvironment.wor… and it is not environmentally friendly and has destroyed some people’s lives. Wind proponents have refused to address the real problems, which has resulted in the need to ban the technology. Had windustry lovers been willing to discuss the problems and see if we can find solutions, we wouldn’t be in this position. You two commenters are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Wind energy is useless power enriching the wealthy few at the expense of many, requiring fossil fuel back-up in the form of new gas plants. This technology will be obsolete soon because of the rapid advances in solar.
Greenberg is right about one thing: all Annette does is: a) complain b) attack the honesty and morality of anyone who disagrees with her about industrial wind; c) constantly refer glorifyingly to herself; and d) offer no solutions to Vermont’s 1,000+MW/year electricity use.
Annette Smith:
Youve written countless comments and op-eds to deplore the states energy plan and virtually every potential source of electric power other than residential solar. To the extent that your words become implemented policy (which thankfully, so far is not so much), new projects will not be built in Vermont.
Of course, that doesnt mean that the state goes dark. Rather, it means that we continue to rely on the sources we currently have, which includes mainly fossil-fuel and nuclear power generated elsewhere. (Youve made it clear that you also oppose the gas pipeline here and presumably gas-fired generation as well). If thats your idea of a green energy policy, then its fair to ask you to explain the basis of your thinking.
Meanwhile, to come here and suggest that others need to propose a concrete solution is more than a little disingenuous.
For what its worth, more than one proposed plan is already out there, including one I wrote in broad strokes 8 years ago to map out how we could replace the power we were buying from Vermont Yankee at the time. VPIRG has written at least one report; the Douglas DPS developed a set of alternatives (in response to a legislative mandate about alternative sources to VY), and there is now a Comprehensive Energy Plan from the Shumlin DPS. Im sure there are others.
All of these sources place significant emphasis on energy efficiency and take a hard look at the possibilities of large-scale renewable generation in Vermont: wind, solar, biomass, and hydro.
From what I infer from your comments, you reject all of these sources except, in some cases, at micro-scale. Eliminating all utility-scale projects without proposing alternatives amounts to supporting existing resources.