The Vermont Public Service Board has denied Ridge Protectors Inc.'s request for discovery and hearings on the certificate of public good being issued for a wind generation facility in Sheffield.

In Wednesday's decision, the board denied the challenge brought by Ridge Protectors. The service board's clerk, Susan Hood, sent the decision to interested parties.

The case relates to the Aug. 8, 2007, Public Service Board's issuance of a certificate of public good which granted conditional approval of a wind generation facility by Vermont Wind.

Paul Brouha of Sutton, Ridge Protectors spokesman, said Monday that the Ridge Protectors appeal filed to the Environmental Court about a storm water construction permit is still pending. He said the group filed a brief Friday saying the PSB should direct Vermont Wind to submit an amended application because too many changes have been sought.

The group also still has a challenge to the Public Service Board's decision pending before the Vermont Supreme Court. Brouha said the group has had that case pending for nine months.

Talking about last week's PSB denial Brouha on Monday said, "They said all these things were essentially within the certificate of the public good. It's pretty bluntly just that. They found in favor of Vermont Wind."

The Ridge Protectors challenge was presented to the Public Service Board in mid-November, according to the record, through a "letter contending that the compliance filings are insufficient. In particular, RPI contends that the blasting plan does not contain any specifics regarding the extent, design, or timing of the proposed blasting," the board said in its order relative to the compliance filings.

"RPI further contends that the lighting plan does not include detail regarding 'whether lights will be shielded from ground-based viewing or from how far they will be visible.' Finally, RPI expressed concerns with the NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit, to the extent that the document shows different turbine access routes than the ones approved by the board," according to the PSB ruling.

RPI was seeking, the case states, "the opportunity to conduct discovery on the compliance filings and requests that the board hold hearings on the filings to fully explore the issues involved. RPI also reasserts its position that no construction should be allowed until a power purchase agreement is filed."

Several days after the RPI challenge, Vermont Wind filed a response, asserting "that the Board had found that blasting could be done in such a way as to avoid damage to homes and wells. Further, Vermont Wind states that the CPG (Certificate of Public Good) conditions associated with the blasting required that any blasting be subject to certain limitations and that Vermont Wind must prepare a plan that includes pre-blast surveys of wells and structures in the surrounding area. Vermont Wind contends that RPI is attempting to relitigate an issue that was resolved during earlier proceedings."

As part of the process of review, the state's Agency of Natural Resources filed a letter saying it opposed RPI's motion for discovery and hearing. "ANR states that the permit has been appealed to the Vermont Environmental Court 'by persons at least some of whom ANR believes to be members of Ridge Protectors.' ANR contends that discovery and hearing by the Board on the NPDES permit would be duplicative of the review the Environmental Court will perform."

Also, the Department of Public Service wrote to say that the FAA lighting determination, blasting plan and emergency responder letters do satisfy the applicant's requirements under the certificate of public good conditions.

The decision issued by the board addressed each point raised by Ridge Protectors and found in each instance that the "filings adequately respond," to particular conditions under the certificate of public good.

"The blasting plan filed by Vermont Wind adequately addresses Condition 6 of the CPG," the decision states. "The plan is not meant to detail the dates and times of every blasting event, but to provide an outline of how Vermont Wind will address potential disruption to neighboring structures and wells," the denial of Ridge Protectors request states.

In conclusion, the board found that, "RPI has not provided sufficient reason as to why additional discovery and hearings are required for the review of Vermont Wind's compliance filings. Instead, RPI raises issues that have already been decided by the board. We deny RPI's request for discovery and hearings."

John Lamontagne, First Wind spokesman, said, "We're pleased with the Public Service Board's decision and we're looking forward to moving ahead with this project as soon as we can."