Ridge Protectors Inc. is continuing to fight the Vermont Public Service Board's issuance of a Certificate of Public Good for the wind project in Sheffield and Sutton, and on Tuesday fired another missive at Vermont Wind.

Ridge Protectors is attempting to block Vermont Wind (formerly UPC Vermont Wind) from moving forward with the project which will see a series of towering, more than 400-foot tall wind turbines installed along the ridgelines here.

The group believes there is new information since the certificate was issued last August, and that more hearings are needed to be sure the project is in the public's interest.

In a motion submitted Aug. 8 to the Public Service Board, the Ridge Protectors appealed to the board in a Motion For Relief, seeking to have the Certificate of Public Good for the project either withdrawn or rescinded.

At that time, Vermont Wind had no comment on the legal maneuver by the Ridge Protectors, but on Aug. 20, Vermont Wind did fire back to the state's Public Service Board, which has yet to act on the Ridge Protectors' motion.

Tuesday, Ridge Protectors fired back again in the ongoing battle with a reply sent to the Public Service Board.

The Aug. 20 response to the Ridge Protectors' motion from Vermont Wind attorney Andrew Raubvogel of Shems Dunkiel Kassel & Saunders PLLC in Burlington, argued that Ridge Protectors had merely "repackaged" their "prior arguments and efforts to have the Board preemptively reopen the evidence in this case, notwithstanding the Board's clear direction that it would not do so.

There is no basis in law or fact of RPI's (Ridge Protectors Inc.) claims; the board should deny their request.

In their earlier motion, Ridge Protectors had asserted that claimed that Vermont Wind failed to meet conditions of its Certificate of Public Good, specifically Condition 3 which provides that the power company must "make all reasonable efforts to enter into diverse, long-term, stably priced power contracts with Vermont utilities."

The response states that "Vermont Wind has not yet sought to commence construction, and thus has not failed to meet the condition."

"Second, Vermont Wind has not acted ‘unreasonably' in not yet filing revised power contracts, and RPI's suggestion that Vermont Wind by required to file them by Sept. 1, 2008 or have the Certificate of Public Good rescinded is arbitrary and unsupported," counters Attorney Raubvogel.

Continuing, Raubvogel states that Vermont Wind has been fighting RPI in the Vermont Supreme Court, which is still considering the appeal of the issuance of the Certificate of Public Good (CPG) "Vermont Wind has been required to focus on defending the CPG on appeal, while at the same time determining which post -CPG compliance filings could be made given the circumstances of the appeal," the Vermont Wind attorney response states.

Continuing, Attorney Raubvogel states, "As the Board can appreciate, the pendency of the appeal invariably affects business decisions concerning when and how to move forward with a $90 million (plus/minus) project.

The Vermont Wind response says that Ridge Protectors' attempt to reopen the hearing process should be rejected.

Ridge Protectors, in their reply Tuesday to the Vermont Wind claims to the Board, maintains that Vermont Wind has, "by failing for this long to produce a copy of such a contract...essentially demonstrated it cannot get one and thus it should not have to explain why. Its explanations are, at best, lawyers' excuses but not anything substantive from the client confirming why there has been such a delay," states the Ridge Protector's reply submitted Tuesday by Sutton resident and group spokesman Paul Brouha.

"Maybe the delay is because there will be no government subsidy for wind starting with projects that begin in 2009," Brouha's response states. "If so, there may never be a project and Vermont Wind should have to disclose that or whatever are the real reasons for the delay."

Brouha wrote that "This hearing would not be to revoke an existing permit but to demonstrate that a condition of the permit has not been met and thus to rescind the permit. The Board has jurisdiction to do that." He stated that there is "new information...that would justify reopening this proceeding."

"Finally, Vermont Wind argues that it can indefinitely postpone the implementation of the terms of a CPG because there is no harm to anyone," the reply filed by Brouha states.

"In the year since the CPG was issued, substantial issues have arisen regarding the price of energy and the advantages of energy conservation and demand side management over producing more energy from projects which cause substantial environmental and social harm," the group's reply states.

"Together, these new issues make clear the electric rate payer will be paying three times for wind power - once for the high price of wind-generated energy, a second time to ensure baseload backup generation is continually available, and a third time to provide the distributed transmission infrastructure to move the power to market," stated the Ridge Protectors reply.

"Thus, now is the time for the Board to force Vermont Wind to come forward with the information on its contract negotiations, particularly its demand price for the energy from these wind turbines, so that the Board can see whether there is any point in even continuing to consider this project as a viable energy option in Vermont."