A sound policy for industrial wind power in Vermont?

Whether you call them wind farms or industrial wind generating plants, these industrial developments have caused divisiveness and controversy in almost every community in Vermont where they have been proposed.

Because electricity generation has special legal status for land use regulations, industrial wind projects are being sited in areas where other industrial developments -- say, a mine that was lit at night and worked 24/7 -- might never be allowed.

And because they're lucrative investments, we can expect a gold rush by wind developers if the industry, its lobbyists, and some state legislators have their way and make permitting even easier.

The House Natural Resources and Energy Committee has held multiple hearings on bill H.654 that would fast-track industrial wind energy projects in the state. Another bill, H.677, would put in place standards and regulations to protect Vermont citizens from adverse impacts (such as noise) that developers deny are problems. That bill has not had a single hearing.

Yet according to "The Brewing Tempest Over Wind Power" (The Wall Street Journal, March 1, 2010), "complaints about sleep disruption -- as well as the deleterious health effects caused by the pulsing, low-frequency noise emitted by the giant turbines -- are a central element of an emerging citizen backlash against the booming global wind industry."

Hundreds of complaints from wind facility neighbors around the world are being dismissed as baseless and from people who "just don't want to see them in their backyards" according to Lawrence Mott of Renewable Energy Vermont.

In Vermont, where industrial wind plants need to be sited on mountain ridgelines, the impacts are significantly greater than on flatland. The linear formation of the turbines combined with the contour of the mountains can magnify sound in unpredictable ways.

In rural areas where background noise is negligible, repetitive sounds can be especially troubling. Environmental impacts to headwaters, wetlands, erosion, wildlife corridors, forest fragmentation, and bats to name a few, are far greater on ridges.

Several facts should be understood when considering industrializing Vermont's ridgelines. Vermont is ranked fifth in the world and first in the United States as an ecotourist destination by National Geographic. Electricity use peaked in 2005 has gone down 6 percent since then. Vermont is recognized as the country's leader in efficiency.

The likely closing of Vermont Yankee in 2012 will have no impact on Vermont's ability to get electricity, as there is a surplus in New England and Canada, who has provided us with abundant, reasonably-priced, baseload, and non CO2 emitting energy through Hydro-Quebec.

Between Sen. Bernard Sanders' solar initiative, small and community scale wind and hydro, and abundant biomass, Vermont has many choices that are not controversial.

Industrial wind in Vermont will not replace any fossil fuel plants, will not meaningfully reduce CO2 emissions (Vermont has the lowest in the country), nor provide significant long-term jobs. So why the push for industrial wind?

Rep. Tony Klein, D-East Montpelier, chairman of the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee, wants to fast-track industrial wind, move the review of environmental concerns from the Environmental Court to the Public Service Board, and limit citizen input.

Mott of REV says "developers need certainty that their projects will happen." Yet citizens need certainty that noise and other impacts will not prevent them from peacefully enjoying their own homes and properties.

According to Mott, developers don't want to be restricted by regulations such as setbacks that would tend to reduce such problems. But without some protections, citizens have no recourse and developers have no accountability.

If an industrial development is considered "green," then how many people's wellbeing can be sacrificed in the name of a "public good?" Since developers have enough money to pay a town's local taxes, shouldn't they also fairly compensate those in close proximity who are not benefiting financially and who bear the brunt of adverse impacts?

In a world of unsustainable population growth, disappearing forests and scarce water, Vermont has abundant clean water for healthy ecosystems and abundant forests that absorb CO2. Shouldn't we be protecting these natural resources -- which are the envy of the rest of the world -- for future generations?

Sandy Wilbur, co-founder of The Glebe Mountain Group and Vermont Energy Conservancy, lives in Londonderry, where, in 2007, protective language was added to the town plan and the town voted 2 to 1 against a wind development there.