In January 2007, Deerfield Wind and Iberdrola Renewables (formerly PPM Energy, a subsidiary of the Spanish energy company Iberdrola) applied for a Certificate of Public Good from the Vermont Public Service Board in order to construct a 34 megawatt (MW) wind turbine project in the Green Mountain National Forest in Readsboro and Searsburg. ...Wilmington voted at a town meeting in December 2007 to oppose the project based on concerns about wildlife habitat, aesthetics and lack of public benefit including the areas of property values and the impact on tourism.

How many miles of once scenic ridgelines will be dominated by towering industrial wind turbines replacing nuclear power? How will they be connected to the power transmission grid? What will be the visible, audible and environmental impacts of spinning blades and mountainside access roads and powerlines? Where will we get electricity when the wind doesn't blow, or blows so hard that turbines have to be stopped? ...Proponents of "clean energy" alternatives are pitching them against nuclear power instead of detailing their feasibilities, risks and impacts. Vermonters deserve much better information as we debate, plan and implement our energy future.

The statement that the project "is expected to begin moving forward soon" is incorrect, unless the reporter knows something I do not. The Public Service Board's decision is pending this fall but a number of interveners are currently fighting the project before the PSB, including Save Vermont Ridgelines. Should this project be approved, one of the largest bear habitats in Vermont will be destroyed. As this is the first wind project proposed on national forest land, it will pave the way for similar projects in other national forests, such as those currently proposed in Virginia, West Virginia, and Michigan.

While the proposed turbines are located in Searsburg and Readsboro, their impact on neighboring Wilmington would be substantial, particularly for residents living in the viewshed of the ridgeline. Should we not be compensated as well? What about the potential decline in the value of our real estate? ...Perhaps more important, aside from the monetary value, what about the decreased enjoyment of our property because of the turbines?

Here at home, the Vermont Supreme Court heard arguments about the only new wind project in Vermont with permits from the Public Service Board. The company, recently renamed FirstWind, won permission to erect 16 turbines on a ridgeline in Sheffield. The permit was appealed by local opponents organized as Ridge Protectors. As far as I can tell from an internet search, only the Barton Chronicle covered the session. ...The Chronicle story quotes Justice Reiber as asking the attorneys, "How could they measure economic benefit without the contracts?" Of course it takes two to tango, so who knows whether it's First Wind or the Vermont utilities that are reluctant to reach a power-sale deal. No telling when the Supreme Court will decide the appeal, but First Wind said recently it doesn't expect to start putting up the turbines (assuming the permit stands) this year.

I read last week's article "Forest Service buys Handle Road parcel" with trepidation. It is important to realize that the United States Forest Service no longer protects forest lands, even national forests, from development. Their 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement for Vermont's Green Mountain National Forest identifies 37 sites, for a total of 19,700 acres, as "potentially both viable and suitable" for wind power development. As quoted in their report on Page 3-298 ...

Far from being "environmentally friendly," the proposed project would effectively destroy one of the largest, if not the largest, bear habitats in Vermont. The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources stated in recent testimony that the project "would result in significant adverse impacts to black bear habitat" and would "cause long-term harm to the bear population in southern Vermont." The Vermont Natural Resources Council has stated that the wildlife habitat in the western project area could not be mitigated. In other words, once destroyed, that habitat cannot be repaired or replaced.

...in the zeal to capture a perceived new market advantage, Vermont businesses need to be careful. In this evolving green marketplace lies legal risk, along with the potential to harm Vermont's green brand that has served the state so well. Many consumers have become informed about green claims such as recycled, biodegradable, natural and organic. Recently, the call for action to address global warming has led manufacturers and service providers to add new terms to their marketing, such as "carbon neutral" and "carbon offsets." Considering existing law and the potential for new regulatory oversight, it is essential for Vermont businesses that currently rely on and harness Vermont's green brand to ensure that the green claims made by them and others are accurate and supportable. Moreover, any business considering simply hopping on to the "green" marketing bandwagon should recognize that doing so has some considerable risks.

But in recent years VPIRG has been, in reality, little more than a lobbying enterprise for special interests which, in large measure, fund it -- primarily corporate wind power and alternative energy interests. Ironically, these are heavily taxpayer-subsidized corporate projects of the type public interest groups used to advocate against. In this role, VPIRG appears to have the Democratic Party firmly under its thumb. It comes, then, as no surprise that that party's agenda is tightly linked, not to the most pressing concerns of the people of Vermont, but to the personal agendas of VPIRG's board of directors. ...For instance, David Bittersdorf and Mathew Rubin, two men with active wind power enterprises in Vermont, are trustees of VPIRG, as is Dave Rapaport, who worked for five years for Mathew Rubin's East Mountain Wind Tower Co. Trustee Leigh Seddon founded Solar Works Inc., a renewable-energy design and contracting firm. VPIRG's five registered lobbyists work the state Legislature tirelessly for more taxpayer funding for renewable energy.

Where is the responsible-or even logical-ethic in dynamiting, clear cutting and fragmenting scores of miles of some of the rarest, most picturesque mountain habitat in Vermont to install 200 sky-scraper sized wind turbines to produce less than 100MW of sporadic energy in a state that generates virtually no CO2 to obtain electricity- with no assurance these wind projects will abate carbon emissions and with certainty they will not supplant any conventional generation, including nuclear? Since unreliable, highly variable wind energy provides no capacity, it cannot obviate the need for conventional generation. ...Of all people, environmentalists should embrace the skepticism of science, rather than be seduced by deceits of fashion.

In the town of Searsburg the private citizens own about 20% of the land and the rest belongs to the power companies,the state, and the National Forest. That extremely limits our growth as a town, yet they continue to destroy more forest land in the name of public good. ...This project is expected to cost over $60 million to build and destroy 80 acres of prime pristine forest land. How can you justify the cost with the return? Is there a price on our National Forests? Is there a price on the people's lives that live nearby that will surely be changed by the noise and lights? Is there a price on the many others who will see the nine to 12 red flashing lights from a distance in the night sky? They paint a rosy picture, but is it? I ask you all, Is this in the public good?

There may be places for wind turbines in the New England hills, but so far developers have been going at the thing willy-nilly, with very little careful study involved. And the effect on the fossil-fuel industry, even with thousands of turbines erected, would be next to nothing. Don't these people have any bridges they want to sell us? Those we could use.

Recently, the Public Service Board made history. With the stroke of a pen, three men reversed a century of work by Vermont citizens to preserve this state's historic landscape. Chairman James Volz, David Cohen, and John Burke opened the door to the largest industrial ridgeline development project in our state's history. Unfortunately, this will become their legacy.

Too bad the Public Service Board approved UPC Wind's application to construct 16 420-foot-tall wind turbines in Sheffield, where people all over the Northeast Kingdom will have to see these monsters. (Remember, they're bigger than the Bennington Battlefield Monument.) The economics are lousy. The threat to our tourism industry is real and substantial. It strikes me that the folks who would put such things on our ridge tops would probably also spray foam insulation on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel to increase its R value.

The PSB attached a number of conditions to their approval of the project. As the Ridge Protectors, a group of people who have opposed the project for years, say, the attached conditions contain potential deal breakers and they intend to fight the actual project to the bitter end. We are with them. The Sheffield voters, when they approved the project for an entirely illusory tax benefit, sold the Northeast Kingdom's birthright for a mess of pottage. Assuming The Ridge Protectors prevail and the project is stopped, these same voters, when they discover the taste of pottage, will be thanking them.

Vermont Yankee is also a valuable and vitally important resource that should not be wasted. Unlike wind power, Vermont Yankee provides low cost, round-the-clock generation that, when combined with the Hydro Quebec contracts, gives Vermont one of the lowest carbon footprints in the country. Vermont and Entergy Nuclear, the owner of Vermont Yankee, should work together to jointly develop Vermont's future energy plan. The ongoing political battle between the Entergy and Vermont helps no one.

Unfortunately, the most important issue at hand has been conspicuously glossed over in these debates. Our immediate need is to begin securing baseload power sources, which will provide economical electricity 24 hours per day, 365 days each year after the current agreements with Vermont Yankee and Hydro-Quebec expire. Make no mistake, all Vermonters need to find opportunities within their own homes and businesses to switch to more energy efficient technology and reduce consumption by adopting conservation practices for all energy usage. Additionally, where economically viable without massive government subsidies, all in-state renewable energy sources should be developed. Local sources tend to be more reliable, provide greater economic benefits and facilitate fuel and supply source diversity. But, renewables, (excluding large hydro), efficiency and conservation will never to be able to meet fully Vermont's electrical energy needs. Nor do they eliminate the need for baseload supply.

The defense Mr. Shumlin makes for the bill depends on wildly optimistic predictions about a huge number of jobs to be created by the tidal wave of demand to weatherproof houses. He wraps the flag around the bill and says it will free us from buying oil from countries that hate us. Which countries? Texas? Louisiana? Alaska? He claims that Vermont's energy independence will somehow evolve from a myriad of local wind, solar and hydro projects. Where does he propose to site these wind towers? How many does he think we need to build to have a measurable effect on energy production?

Vermont's magnificent ridgelines already are a power source that fuels our state's second largest industry: recreation and tourism. Wind turbines cannot be labeled a "clean" fuel source because they pollute the ridgelines in the process. A better approach to meeting our state's electrical needs would be a program to help Vermonters place the new energy-efficient light bulbs in homes and businesses across the state to reduce Vermont's electrical need. The Vermont ridgelines do a wonderful job of fueling our state just the way they are and they need our protection.

So, to avoid a long and uncertain political and legal battle, Entergy, the state's lowest cost, most reliable energy producer, agreed to pay the state's new Clean Energy Fund as much as $28 million over the next seven years. The state will use the money to subsidize VPIRG's favorite renewable energy projects, chief among which are legions of already-subsidized 420-foot wind turbine towers marching along Vermont's mountain ridges.