Library filed under Impact on Economy from Vermont
The vast building and subsidizing of renewable energy facilities throughout Vermont will not affect climate change. ...By following these policies we will not pass on to the next generation a Vermont that is one iota cooler or more stable than it otherwise would be. It will be, however, uglier, less accessible, more expensive, and harder to find a job. Talk about a call to burn down the village in order to save it!
“The states and NESCOE are deliberately working out the details of this plan in secret, consistent with the view of one of NESCOE’s staffers that the plan should be ‘formulated behind closed doors’ because the ‘court of public opinion can be fickle and recalcitrant,’ ” Courchesne wrote, quoting an email from a NESCOE staff member to Executive Director Heather Hunt.
"Subsidies for renewables make sense only if they're achieving a societal benefit," said staff attorney Ed McNamara in a handwritten note on one draft report. "Without retirement of RECs, the only societal benefit of Vermont's program is economic development (and through) an inefficient method."
Newark residents gave their selectboard a resounding go-ahead to spend as much as needed on legal costs to prevent two wind companies from developing the Seneca Mountain Wind project ...Not too far down the road, the towns of Lowell and Sheffield voted to reduce their tax rates with revenues from utility-scale wind developments.
As I reported in Saturday's paper, New England is experiencing a remarkable spike in electricity prices brought on by high heating demand and rising natural gas prices for electric generators.
While renewable energy is well meaning, it is driving the cost of electricity higher in Vermont, which leads to money being diverted from consumers while also discouraging businesses from investing in the state, according to the Campaign for Vermont.
Klein and Cheney said they had been hearing a groundswell of concern voiced by business lobbyists that getting more power from renewable sources, which are usually more expensive than electricity generated with nuclear or fossil-fuel-fired power, would drive up electric rates and make Vermont less competitive economically.
Both companies had previously signed contracts to take power from the Granite Reliable project; in Thursday's announcement, they said would increase those amounts so that CVPS will take 50.3 percent of the 99-megawatt project, while GMP will take 32 percent. ...Wherever the projects have been proposed, local groups have sprung up to oppose them.
About "getting used to the turbines," I live under the existing eyesores. I have not, nor will I, get used to them. They are noisy, with constant whirring and intermittent clunks that I first mistook for gunshots. I can hear this inside my house with the windows shut. The proposed expansion will, by the developers' estimates, put the average noise level at my house at 44.9 dBA. The World Health Organization defines 45 dBA as unfit for human habitation. Several acres of my property, and that of dozens of neighbors, will be above this limit. I doubt that I would get used to that. Would you? ...There are better alternatives for electricity production. One is located right in Somerset. Vermont leads the nation (by a large margin) in percent of energy consumption from renewable sources. Adding more wind turbines would not alter that ratio, for reasons stated above. The turbines will not help our energy needs and don't belong in the National Forest. Let's keep it a forest.
A portion of the wind energy generated from newly installed wind turbines located in PEI was wheeled through PEI and New Brunswick and sold to the New England Power Pool (NEPOOL) via the international interconnection node in Keswick, N.B. The renewable energy certificates (RECs) that were generated from this transmission were sold separately to independent buyers located in the NEPOOL.
A grass roots coalition of nearly 100 citizens from New York, Vermont, and other states have filed a federal Anti-Trust Complaint alleging that an international cartel comprised of foreign and domestic business entities have conspired to eliminate competition in the newly emerging U.S. wind energy sector.
For those who think developers' feverish promotion of wind energy is about saving the planet, think again. The old adage follow the money explains their zeal much more than do its purported benefits. Worse, the enormous investment returns available to wind developers for an unreliable energy source that offers negligible emissions benefits stem largely from federal and state subsidies paid for by taxpayers and rate payers. Go figure.
He recalled Vermont's high scoring in the National Geographic Traveler's Destination Scorecard in 2004. Among the judges' comments was this apt summation: "One of the few places where a large percentage of the populace is committed to conservation/preservation over injudicious development." Editor's Note: Vermont's Northeast Kingdom is the site of proposed wind plants in East Haven and Sheffield/Sutton.
Symbolism aside, Mt. Equinox may not be as impressive as Yosemite's El Capitan or the Grand Tetons, but something very real would be sacrificed on the questionable altar of renewable-energy-for-profit. Mt. Equinox and all of our mountains are not just a "back yard." They are a heritage and a legacy. And they are as good a place as any to make a stand. The issue at stake is preservation, and the face of environmentalism should be one of traditional conservation, not a heedlessly applied new orthodoxy. As a nation we need cleaner energy sources, but despoiling the scenic ridgelines in Vermont's premier recreational destination for minimal public benefit is misguided and irresponsible.
If we allow these wind turbines to come it is very possible that the economic health of Vermont as we know it today will be irreversibly damaged. Vermont will no longer be known as the last bastion of rugged beauty in the United States.
SHEFFIELD – Residents here are gearing up for a public showdown to determine how registered voters feel about the proposed Sheffield Wind Farm.
Given the nature of our students and their families, the implementation of an industrial wind turbine "farm" surrounding our school would spell our school's death. Our school simply cannot operate surrounded by 400-foot industrial wind towers with flashing red lights at night and steady noise 24 hours a day.
READSBORO — Officials from the two towns most affected by a proposed wind facility met on Wednesday night to discuss the economic impacts of a 30-turbine development. The Readsboro and Searsburg Select Boards met in the Central School gym to discuss the financial benefits and strains that can be expected by a town hosting a wind farm. Robert Ide of the Vermont Department of Public Service attended, as did about 10 residents. Searsburg is now the home of the state's only existing commercial wind facility. There are 11 turbines producing about 6 megawatts of electricity. A 30- to 45-megawatt plant with 20 to 30 new turbines has been proposed for ridgelines spanning both Readsboro and Searsburg.
Wind power is an idea that is appealing to the imagination. It sounds like a "free" source of energy that would be non-polluting and stable in cost. I am an optimist, and I love technology. If I thought for one moment that windmills would be a source of low cost energy, I would be building them. The reality is quite the contrary--wind power is wasteful of human and natural resources.
We cannot lose sight of Vermont's distinctive place in the world with its open spaces and gorgeous vistas. It is up to us to continue the legacy. Real jobs, real lives depend on it.