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appealed to the board in a Motion For Relief, seeking to have the Certificate of Public Good for the project either withdrawn or rescinded.

A public hearing on the revised town plan at the municipal building Thursday night drew a crowd, whose most vocal members wanted opposition to industrial wind projects reflected in the plan. Presented by the board of selectmen and Jay Dudley, chairman of the planning commission of Barton, about 130 people considered issues that ranged from law enforcement in town to the no. 1 question on most people's minds: how should the town plan for or against the harnessing of big wind?

Vermont should consider building a series of medium-sized power generation projects rather than one major facility, and renewable energy projects will likely play a large role ...David O'Brien, Vermont's commissioner of public service, said the study is another step in planning the state's energy future. "There's a strong desire in Vermont to have more of our power produced in the state," he said. O'Brien said the results of the study dove-tailed well with recent work asking Vermont residents where they wanted their electricity to come from. It remains to be seen how much of the state's electricity will be produced by renewable projects, he said.

In late 2009 residents here and in surrounding towns may see wind turbines along Georgia Mountain. Jim Harrison and his family, owners of Harrison Concrete, have proposed the construction of 400-foot-tall wind towers on 700 acres the family owns on the southeastern summit of Georgia Mountain in Milton, along the Chittenden and Franklin County line. Harrison said his reason for undertaking the project is the need for renewable energy, describing the project as a "way a small family can make a difference."

The Vermont Public Service Board on Wednesday asked two wind power companies to pay $2,000 for potential violations over wind measurement towers on Lowell Mountain. Atlantic Wind LLC and, enXco agreed with the state to withdraw their application to the PSB for new, taller wind measurement towers on Lowell Mountain. The PSB accepted that deal this week. In response to the deal, enXco took down two existing 50-meter measurement towers as required by an existing certificate of public, good, according to the PSB order issued Wednesday.

"While wind power is a popular and growing source of electricity generation in the United States ... it continues to face regulatory obstacles and local opposition," stated the Vermont Energy Partnership report. "And while there is clear potential for an expansion of wind in the State of Vermont, even fully developed, wind can only meet a fraction of the state's electricity needs. To ensure that Vermont has a dependable supply of clean and low-cost electricity, base load providers such as Vermont Yankee and HydroQuébec must continue to serve our state into the future," stated the report.

Symington released a proposal Wednesday that calls for increasing the state's use of wind energy from about 0.2 percent today to 20 percent, saying it would create jobs while shifting the state away from reliance on nuclear power and out-of-state sources whose prices are expected to increase. State Public Service Commissioner David O'Brien called the plan "irresponsible." Wind is not reliable enough to provide that much of the state's energy, and Vermonters would not want to see that many turbines popping up across the landscape, he said.

In Vermont the parties are still waiting for a decision on the Sheffield project, which was argued before the high court in May. A clerk at the Supreme Court said Tuesday she has no idea when a decision might be announced. Meanwhile, the opponents of big wind in western New York believe they are finally getting the recognition they deserve with this month's announcement by the AG's office in Albany.

First Wind, a company with permits to build a wind power project in northern Vermont, is under investigation in New York for alleged improper practices in obtaining land and permits to build wind farms. New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has served subpoenas on the Newton, Mass.-based company and on Noble Environmental Power, a Connecticut company. First Wind has built three projects in New York; Noble has built major wind farms just across Lake Champlain from Vermont.

Across Lake Champlain, many Vermonters are asking the same question. While wind energy sails along at a healthy clip in New York and much of New England, in Vermont it's been as flaccid as a limp windsock. Currently, all of Vermont's grid-scale wind power - a meager 6 megawatts total - comes from 11 turbines in Searsburg, in southern Vermont. A 16-turbine project in Sheffield is due to break ground later this year, but that is by no means a done deal. If it does move forward, the modest project would increase Vermont's wind energy output fivefold. That's still a pittance compared to Vermont's neighbors.

Seventeen new wind turbines proposed on Green Mountain State Forest Land by Deerfield Wind, LLC, could generate over $3 million for the town over the next 20 years, according to Richard Saudek, attorney for both Readsboro and Searsburg in the matter. The contract was shared with residents at a meeting Tuesday. Instead of taxes, the town will benefit from the success of the wind farm or receive a minimum of $154,000 annually. ...Saudek said he has never shared a contract like this with the public before but came away with some questions. Concerns of citizens included when the payments would come in, if the town would receive money during the construction phase, what happens if the owners default on payment and how market fluctuations would affect the contract.

After part of a cooling tower collapsed last August at Vermont's only nuclear power plant, the company that runs it blamed rotting wooden timbers that it had failed to inspect properly. The uproar that followed rekindled environmental groups' hopes of shutting down the aging plant. The proposed closing, albeit a long shot, has gained some support this year among Vermont politicians. The discussion here is bringing into sharp relief a conflict between two objectives long held by environmental advocates: combating nuclear power and stopping global warming. ...[M]any advocacy groups dream of achieving a nuclear-free mix burnished by local renewables. ...But utilities in Vermont, like their counterparts elsewhere in the country, argue that environmental advocates are mistaken if they believe a low-emission future can be achieved without nuclear power. They note the intermittency of power sources like windmills and solar panels, and argue that the nation needs more, not fewer, big power plants that emit no carbon dioxide.

The Douglas administration released a draft plan Tuesday to help shape Vermont's energy future. Critics immediately lambasted the 267-page document as inadequate to reduce the state's dependence on petroleum, to increase energy efficiency or to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The plan, drafted by the state Public Service Department, calls for continued reliance on electricity from Hydro Quebec and Vermont Yankee while utilities find more diverse, preferably in-state, sources of renewable power.

The last challenge facing the Sheffield wind project may well come down to of the most hallowed principles in a regulated marketplace. Is the public getting a good deal? That question was front and center at a hearing last week before the state Supreme Court. ln fact, it's a question that has dogged the project ever since it was proposed by UPC Wind in February 2006. The case has landed in the Supreme Court because opponents, a citizens' group organized as the Ridge Protectors, believe the public good is not being well served by the project. And they are willing to put their money where their mouth is. Their attorney, Daniel Hershenson, argued before the high court last Thursday, May 15, that a decision allowing the project to go forward should be overturned.

Blades have begun to turn on 121 wind turbines here and in neighboring Ellenburg, a 35-minute drive northwest of Plattsburgh. Saturday, they turned with a soft whush, whush, whush. "Whush, whush, whush, all day long, all night long - I moved here because it was so peaceful and quiet," groused Allen Barcombe as he pointed to the nearest tower, jutting up 400 feet into the sky behind his house. ...The New York turbines, in two projects developed by Noble Environmental Power, are the first of nearly 400 expected to go up in five towns on a windy plateau just south of the Canadian border. When completed, the development about 90 minutes from Burlington will represent the largest concentration of wind turbines in the eastern United States.

The Vermont Public Service Board, a neutral arbiter of aesthetics, has ruled twice against the structure, which was erected by the owners of Teal Farm in January 2006, with the blessings of the town's zoning administrator. Subsequent challenges from the farm's adjoining neighbor, part-time Vermont resident E. Miles Prentice III, halted the project. The service board agreed with Prentice: It found the wind tower to have "an unduly adverse effect" on the surrounding viewscape. Living Future Foundation, which operates Teal Farm and its array of sustainable energy-and-agriculture projects, appealed the decision.

In what could be a national precedent, the Vermont Public Service Board is reviewing a plan to build 17 industrial wind turbines on more than 80 acres of the Green Mountain National Forest. Known as Deerfield Wind, the turbine project would be located along a prominent ridgeline in the towns of Searsburg and Readsboro, Vermont. ...Deerfield Wind would be the first industrial wind-energy facility in a national forest anywhere in the country ...The Green Mountain National Forest is one of only two national forests in New England. The U.S. Forest Service has designated nearly 20,000 acres at 37 sites within the Green Mountain National Forest as "potentially both viable and suitable" for wind power development. Recently, a proposal for a second industrial wind-energy facility within the Green Mountain National Forest was initiated.

State and regional regulators acknowledge the hurdles - especially in northern New Hampshire - but don't have ready solutions. A bill before the New Hampshire Senate would have the state be ready to act if no regional solution is forthcoming. ISO New England, which manages power for the region, is considering changing rules so more of the costs of transmission upgrades could be shared regionally. But as things stand now, backers of projects generally must pay for upgrades needed to connect them to the system. "None of this is a real speedy process," acknowledges Michael Harrington, senior regional policy adviser for the state Public Utilities Commission.

Ridge Protectors, a group fiercely opposed to industrial wind power on Vermont's ridge lines, has launched a letter-writing appeal to Gov. Jim Douglas, who they hope will veto S.209, the so-called Energy Efficiency and Affordability Act. The bill, which is aimed at promoting renewable energy and energy efficiency, has passed both the House and Senate, and is on the governor's desk. The letter-writing campaign is a last-ditch attempt to change a part of the measure that gives industrial wind power a tax break at the expense of the education fund, said Paul Brouha of Sutton.

Although the valley's smallest town often has the highest voter turnout, several controversial articles on the warning may have swelled the ranks at this year's meeting. In the evening's biggest upset, voters reversed last year's nonbinding resolution to oppose PPM Energy's proposed wind generation project in Searsburg and Readsboro. In a paper ballot, the town voted to support the project 29 to 16, a substantial margin. Moderator Gary Sage told voters that the secretary of state's office had advised the town that wording of the article was ambiguous. Article 16 asked voters to "see if the town will vote to determine whether the voters approve of, or are opposed to" the project. According to the secretary of state, the language could mean the town was holding a vote on whether to have a vote.