"They made a lot of promises about how this is going to bring local jobs to local people ... We thought they would be fair and equitable to [our people]."
So much for promises and our gullible expectations. ...The promises of good jobs and a local economic boost were insincere sales pitches, or worse, intentional deceptions.
Green Mountain Power doesn't have to worry about the cost-effectiveness of its project. It will sell the power to its customers ...The cost, however ridiculous it may be, will be added to its cost of service. The Public Service Board will let GMP add a 9 percent profit margin, and send out the bills.
In a time when many of our federal and state programs are being cut and our national debt is at an all time high, I ask "can we afford to build these turbines in a place that relies heavily on tourism for its livelihood?" Would you want to go camping in an area where you hear the whooshing of the blades whenever the wind blows?
What is the hurry? My experience has shown the correlation between speed and quality is poor at best. ...Does the current administration want to be blaming poor forethought later because we "fast tracked" for a tax credit for Canadian Gaz Metro?
Why "fast track," this huge scar in an untouched landscape?
What is the hurry? My experience has shown the correlation between speed and quality is poor at best. Does the current administration want to be blaming poor forethought later because we "fast tracked" for a tax credit for Canadian Gaz Metro?
If the governor were being ingenuous, he might advocate a moratorium on any proposed wind project until his secretary had completed her charge. ...We know why Shumlin and Powell cannot wait: Federal money available for this, otherwise, "never never" plan evaporates at midnight at the end of this year if the Certificate of Public Good is not in hand.
I am dismayed at how irrelevant data and subjective interpretations are masquerading as science in GMPs proposal. Scientifically based protocols for determining risks posed to raptors by industrial wind facilities have been established, and, it appears, are currently not being used in Vermont.
Five years ago, I was among the 90 percent of Vermonters who, when polled, supported wind development even on ridgelines near my home.
Now, after two years immersed in the subject, I no longer support the utility-scale wind energy projects proposed for Vermont; nor do many of the Vermonters who live around the mountains where wind prospectors are pursuing projects.
Annette Smith, the head of Vermonters for a Clean Environment (VCE), the only green group opposing wind power in Vermont (the other, Energize Vermont, is really a VCE spinoff) said she had spent a lot of time discussing the wind issue with officials of the other environmental groups, and suspects that one reason they are all so pro-wind is that a few of them have some financial connections with wind power companies.
The public deserves an energy debate based in fact, not hyperbole. There are very well financed interests that, for personal financial gain, oppose Vermont Yankee. The actions of Mr. Blittersdorf are perhaps the most visible example of this taking place. He is part of a group of folks who have contributed heavily to political campaigns in order to have legislation passed that directly benefit them. These projects cost captive ratepayers as much as six times the current market price.
I was very disappointed to hear that CVPS has purchased 30 percent of the actual output from the 99-megawatt (installed capacity) industrial wind facility in Coos County, N.H. By doing that you supported the construction of 33 miles of new roads in high alpine areas that are presently roadless.
Now I am reading press reports that CVPS is buying output from the Iberdrola project that will be blasted right in the middle of Vermont's most critical black bear habitat.
Rather than inspire a new industry willing to take a risk and invest private capital in hopes of a return, the green-energy incentives simply perpetuate a dependence upon government largess. In an effort to put a thumb on the scales and pick their own winners and losers, the Legislature's proposals more closely resemble some fly-by-night, get-rich scheme than a thoughtful economic development plan.
Renewable energy's enormous physical footprint often competes with food production and impacts our environment in a number of ways, some of which are subtle and poorly understood. Renewables have a value where energy (usually electricity) is essential and getting it there prohibitively expensive, that is, worth all its costs, costs we must understand as we select our energy generation technologies.
Citizens Wind explicitly stated that the company would not try to permit a project against the wishes of the townspeople, but to move from town to town, Waitsfield to Moretown to Northfield, proposing the same project is perilously close to the tactics of those who propose big box stores for communities. When rejected by one, they move to the neighboring town - until ultimately there is a Wal-Mart on every corner.
Utility scale wind projects are proposed or approved in no fewer than eight locations across Vermont: Lowell, Londonderry, Ira, West Rutland, Waitsfield, Georgia, Sheffield and Deerfield. Each of these projects would extend across miles of ridgeline. These multi-mile, multi-tower facilities would fundamentally alter ridgelines.
No matter how much or how little generation we have, industrial scale wind turbines will never make a difference. They are unpredictably intermittent and there has been no circumstance where building wind plants has resulted in the decommissioning of an existing fossil fuel facility.
Industrial wind projects divide communities, lower property values, will harm Vermonters' health, wildlife, tourist and second-home economy, and kill birds and endangered bats.
As Bob Messner noted last week, industrial wind power is a valuable renewable energy source with positive potential-in the right places. A community whose character and economy are lifestyle-based is not one. Another of Jane Davis' comments makes a good closer: "For people living near wind farms, both now and in the future, it will be a disaster.... This isn't about Nimbyism, but the rights of ordinary people to live a normal life."
Waitsfield voters may be asked to make a decision about changing the Town Plan before Citizens' Energy has completed its environmental studies, and that would be wrong. The environmental studies for this project need to come first before any changes to the Town Plan are made.
Wind farms bring a lot of baggage with them. They can be dangerous and they make a lot of noise 24/7 when the wind is blowing. They do not handle ice well (remember the ice storm we had around 1997?).
They are best suited for extremely rural areas - not resorts. They do not fit well in places with a lot of development. ...There are other considerations.