News
Hearing Officer Nixes East Haven Wind Project
In a surprising turn of events, the Vermont Public Service Board hearing officer in the East Haven wind project case has recommended the PSB deny a certificate of public good for the project.
March 11, 2006
by Jeanne Miles, Staff Writer
in The Caledonian-Record (VT)
In his 91-page report released Friday, Kurt Janson wrote: "I recommend that the Public Service Board deny a certificate of public good for the proposed project. The proposed project would be constructed on 17 acres located in the heart of tens of thousands of acres of undeveloped, conserved lands. While this renewable energy project would provide undeniable benefits, those benefits would come at a significant cost: the project, with four 329-foot-tall wind turbines, would be located in the midst of extensive lands that have been protected from development through years of effort and the expenditure of millions of dollars of public funds. In short, I conclude that while this may be the right project, it is in the wrong place."
The land in question comprises about 132,800 acres formerly owned by the Champion Paper Company. It is now known as the Campion Lands which have been set aside for wildlife management and public recreational use.
On Nov. 17, 2003, EMDC, a Montpelier company doing business as East Haven Windfarm, filed a petition with the PSB to construct a 6 megawatt wind facility on East Mountain in East Haven. Hearings on the project were held during March and April of 2005.
"We're very disappointed," David Rapaport, vice president of East Haven Windfarm, said Friday. "I'm still reading the report so I cannot comment further."
The ultimate decision in the case rests with the three-member Public Service Board, who can accept Janson's recommendation and deny a certificate of public good, modify the decision, or reject it.
Parties involved have until March 27 to submit comments on Janson's report, according to Judith Whitney, deputy clerk for the PSB. Those comments and the proposal of recommendation will then be reviewed by the PSB. Appeals of the board's decision go to the Vermont Supreme Court.
One of those parties is the Kingdom Commons Group, which is opposed to the project and was represented at the hearings. Cathy Sargent of Kirby, a member of the group, said she was surprised, but happy with the decision.
"I just can't believe it," Sargent said Friday. "I'm thrilled, elated and stunned. It says a lot about how the opponents' hard work paid off. I think Kurt Janson did the right thing."
Janson cites another reason for his recommendation: "The petitioner has failed to provide sufficient evidence on the proposed project's impacts on bats and birds." By not doing this, Janson wrote, East Haven Windfarm failed to show that the project complies with the environmental protection requirements of Section 248.
His recommendation should not be taken as a statement that wind generation cannot be developed in Vermont, Janson wrote. There may be places in the state where wind farms are suitable, but, he wrote: ÔThat place is not on a narrow slice of land surrounded by thousands of acres that have been conserved through unprecedented measures."
Other wind developers have been watching this case closely. While saying he is opposed to large, commercial wind projects on Vermont's ridgelines, Gov. Jim Douglas has said he supported the East Haven project.
East Haven is located in Essex County in the rural Northeast Kingdom, an area with few residents and fewer public roads. A town survey of residents two years ago showed most were in favor of the project, which would have brought in $75,000 a year in property taxes.
The land in question comprises about 132,800 acres formerly owned by the Champion Paper Company. It is now known as the Campion Lands which have been set aside for wildlife management and public recreational use.
On Nov. 17, 2003, EMDC, a Montpelier company doing business as East Haven Windfarm, filed a petition with the PSB to construct a 6 megawatt wind facility on East Mountain in East Haven. Hearings on the project were held during March and April of 2005.
"We're very disappointed," David Rapaport, vice president of East Haven Windfarm, said Friday. "I'm still reading the report so I cannot comment further."
The ultimate decision in the case rests with the three-member Public Service Board, who can accept Janson's recommendation and deny a certificate of public good, modify the decision, or reject it.
Parties involved have until March 27 to submit comments on Janson's report, according to Judith Whitney, deputy clerk for the PSB. Those comments and the proposal of recommendation will then be reviewed by the PSB. Appeals of the board's decision go to the Vermont Supreme Court.
One of those parties is the Kingdom Commons Group, which is opposed to the project and was represented at the hearings. Cathy Sargent of Kirby, a member of the group, said she was surprised, but happy with the decision.
"I just can't believe it," Sargent said Friday. "I'm thrilled, elated and stunned. It says a lot about how the opponents' hard work paid off. I think Kurt Janson did the right thing."
Janson cites another reason for his recommendation: "The petitioner has failed to provide sufficient evidence on the proposed project's impacts on bats and birds." By not doing this, Janson wrote, East Haven Windfarm failed to show that the project complies with the environmental protection requirements of Section 248.
His recommendation should not be taken as a statement that wind generation cannot be developed in Vermont, Janson wrote. There may be places in the state where wind farms are suitable, but, he wrote: ÔThat place is not on a narrow slice of land surrounded by thousands of acres that have been conserved through unprecedented measures."
Other wind developers have been watching this case closely. While saying he is opposed to large, commercial wind projects on Vermont's ridgelines, Gov. Jim Douglas has said he supported the East Haven project.
East Haven is located in Essex County in the rural Northeast Kingdom, an area with few residents and fewer public roads. A town survey of residents two years ago showed most were in favor of the project, which would have brought in $75,000 a year in property taxes.
| < prev | next > |
Note: this article may be subject to the Fair Use Notice.