Articles filed under General from Vermont
"We're going to continue to oppose this project. The Public Service Board's decision leaves many issues unresolved. The decision fails to adequately address some of the issues raised by the opponents," he said.
If approved by state regulators, the fixed-price contract would start in 2012 at a price of 4.66 cents per kilowatt hour. Beginning in 2015, it would be for 60 megawatts of power, decreasing to 40 megawatts by the end of the deal.
"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.
"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 the people of New Hampshire,'' Cleary said.
Irasburg selectmen and some residents have questions about the economic value of the Lowell wind project. The utilities hoping to build Kingdom Community Wind on Lowell's ridge line want to answer those questions.
The project will "significantly alter a 450-million-year-old iconic ridgeline visible throughout Orleans County. As stated in the 2005 Craftsbury Town Plan, our natural features are at the core of our sense of place and our community identity," the commission wrote. The town's three-member Selectboard agreed to endorse the Conservation Commission's letter and send it to the Public Service Board.
Albany and Craftsbury selectboards have determined "the proposed benefits from the project do not outweigh the adverse impacts to their communities," the towns stated in a news release Monday issued by Energize Vermont.
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?
Shumlin, a Democrat, insisted the change had nothing to do with the fact that the utility, Green Mountain Power Corp., has close ties with the administration -- its CEO, Mary Powell chaired his inaugural committee. ...Others, though, criticized Shumlin's announcement. "All the signs are of political interference with the ANR staff, contrary to what we were told was the case. We are very disappointed,"
The wind farm hearings are being conducted under Section 248 of Title 30, which is the process analogous to Act 250 used for electrical facilities in Vermont. Unlike Act 250, Raphael explained, even if he had found undue, adverse aesthetic impact, it would not automatically stop a project evaluated under Section 248. The board has decided that their judgment of aesthetics is "significantly informed by overall societal benefits of the project."
In a paper entitled Windfarms: Time to Change Direction? the Northamptonshire branch of CPRE said the organisation should "re-evaluate" its support for [wind farms] in the light of new evidence suggesting "that the generation of electricity from wind is not an effective way of reducing carbon emissions". There are lots of reasons for believing this, but the main one is probably the fact that there is as yet no economic way of storing electricity.
Most people think of big wind projects as a way to harvest the breezes that blow freely across the earth. But sophisticated investors look at big wind quite differently. That's because besides generating electricity, the large-scale projects also involve sophisticated financial instruments that harvest a variety of tax benefits.
This week, the Public Service Board opens hearings on Vermont's largest wind development - a proposal for 21 wind turbines that would stand 440 feet tall on a ridgeline in Lowell. Developers hoped to avoid some of the controversy that other projects have faced by asking for, and winning, Lowell voters' support last Town Meeting Day. But it hasn't been that easy.
The GMNF will take all comments and base their decision on four different Deerfield Wind Project proposals. The Deerfield Wind Project SDEIS states the GMNF’s final environmental impact statement must “define the project’s main concerns and disclose the environmental differences among the alternatives based on those issues” according to National Environmental Protection Act guidelines.
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.
Energize Vermont, a group fighting development of utility-scale wind projects in the Green Mountain State, said yesterday that it will continue action against First Wind's Sheffield Wind project if an appeal to the facility's stormwater construction permit fails.
The company is considering a utility scale wind project on the site, with six to seven turbines. Although the plans are preliminary, the state Agency of Natural Resources has raised concerns that the project could fragment what is now a large and undisturbed upper elevation forest.
With a new administration coming into office, anti-wind groups say they haven't been heard in seven years and it's finally time. "We're here to send a message to the new Legislature and to Governor-elect (Peter) Shumlin that the voices of the people in this room must be heard and that we expect to be part of the process," said Annette Smith of Vermonters for a Clean Environment.
Environmentalists are divided over the impacts of large-scale wind projects on Vermont mountains. The split surfaced recently when mainstream environmental groups criticized an advertisement from a lawyer who has fought wind developments. VPR's John Dillon has more.
The computer simulated assessment from the Independent System Operator (ISO) New England reports Vermont and New York could face overloads -- defined as more electricity flowing through the system's equipment than it can handle, which could lead to the lines heating up, sagging, possibly melting and eventually shutting down -- in the system if the nuclear facility goes out of service once its license expires in roughly 17 months.