The AWEA Blog: Into the Wind


Vermont’s wind energy: Responding to a New York Times op-ed

Posted: 2011-10-03 Lawrence H. Mott

Guest article by Lawrence H. Mott.  Mr. Mott is a board member of Renewable Energy Vermont and Principal Consultant at SgurrEnergy, Inc., a renewable energy consultancy firm.

Opinions on the merits of various generation sources are the sign of our struggle to change. A recent New York Times opinion article by Stephen Wright is exactly that: the words of an individual spurred on by a small and vocal group in the small state of Vermont. This description of “disaster” is a means for that group to attract attention after not getting its way during a long, detailed and very public process of determining the Public Good of this generation project under our permitting law, Section 248 (a Certificate of Public Good is required for an electric project).

The findings of this regulatory process, garnered from the diverse parties that participated, the multiple public hearings conducted, the regular dose of media discussion and letters are what represent our state, our people and clearly our goals as described in the recently released (September) draft state Comprehensive Energy Plan.  That plan  calls for significant additions to renewable electric generation, a shift in our heating and transport energy methods, furthering our intense smart grid integration and major investment in efficiency in all sectors. 

 

The 63-MW Kingdom Community Wind project in Lowell, Vt., is a part of this effort, which includes an effort to save our green mountains from ongoing acid rain from Midwest coal generation (which has killed pine trees and impacted vegetation on the very ridges Mr. Wright highlights).

Vermont is not under attack. Vermont has one of the strictest permitting climates, strong land use regulations, and multiple active groups ensuring that forests remain connected, streams are not clouded with runoff, and wildlife habitat is preserved. Wind farm permits have been denied in our state, and significant changes and mitigation have occurred during the process to obtain an approval, with the Department of Natural Resources imposing conditions on projects as well as enforcement and fines for failure to comply. The wind farm roads are required to be reduced in size once the project is constructed. Mr. Wright’s own town in Craftsbury, which is nearby, has no official position on the project, although he refers to the town as having one.

We have the lowest electric demand of New England and one of the smallest carbon footprints due to our significant portions of hydro and nuclear electricity as well as a leading energy efficiency program and efficiency expertise born here. Vermont is furthering this, and doing it where we can.  We have an entrepreneurial spirit for creating and doing the right thing as well as forward thinking companies and, most especially, progressive electric utilities who are making investments in our energy future. Green Mountain Power, Washington Electric Coop, Burlington Electric Department, and even the publically traded Central Vermont Public Service Co. have all made investments in, purchased long-term power from, and in the case of Green Mountain Power, have developed and are building another wind project: the Kingdom Community Wind project, They are doing this to diversify their portfolios, prepare for the 2012 shutdown of our single 39-year-old nuclear plant, and most importantly offer what their customers are asking for; local, renewable energy in their back yard (two polls conducted over the past three years show over 80% and 90% approval and one of the polls explicitly asked if you want it in your back yard). (Conducted via Vermont Dept. Public Service; http://cdd.stanford.edu/polls/energy/2008/vermont-results.pdf)

Vermont has wind, solar and biomass resources and we are working to harness them all, large and small. We have progressive net metering legislation, as well as a focus on medium-scale generation via our Standard Offer program.  For utility scale wind, we have hundreds of miles of north/south ridges that are exposed to the westerly prevailing winds.  To date we have one 6-MW wind farm (Searsburg) operating, a 40-MW wind farm coming on line this fall (Sheffield) and a handful in development; therefore we are behind our nation and our goals to build more of this mature and cost-effective electric source. Even if we eventually build out enough wind for 25% of our electric needs, this would require roughly 4% of our ridgelines (and important to note: the use of 5% of ridgeline would additionally provide over 50% of an electric-powered transportation resource (see: http://www.vpirg.org/repowervt ), thereby addressing the issue Mr. Wright correctly raises on offsetting transport and heating emissions. None of the above wind farm areas would include sites our environmental and historic groups have noted to be preserved, and in several areas, the wind farms would help preserve habitat by placing large tracts in productive use. One can witness the bear fur on a Searsburg wind turbine tower door to see how the bears found a scratching post.

The northern forest is not being torn apart by these plans; in fact, even the most zealous wind person would say the state will likely only support about a dozen wind farms and most of these 75 MW or less in capacity—in parts of the state where wind resource and transmission exist. These farms offer the promise of supplying a significant portion of our small demand, as well as keeping energy dollars circulating in state. Neighboring states have, if anything, found tourism bolstered by wind farms, and a working landscape enhanced by local generation and local jobs.

I would counter Mr Wright’s perspective, and say the environmental groups have taken a stand and a clear one: A October 10, 2010 joint press release: “The Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), Vermont League of Conservation Voters Education Fund (VLCV- EF), Vermont Natural Resources Council (VNRC) and Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG) support the development of wind energy in Vermont.  This collective statement of support for wind, and other renewable energy technologies, is based on our deep concern that society has not moved fast or aggressively enough to address the most urgent environmental crisis in human history: climate change.”

We all love our Green Mountains and are proud of our efforts in helping green the planet.


7 responses

  1. Ira Powsner October 8, 2011 06:17AM
    You said it right Mr. Wright! Many of today's environmentalists have no dirt under there fingernails, but they still claim to speak for Vermonters and for the environment in which we live. I would rather be lost in the woods with a Sterling College student who knows how to start a fire in the rain in a MONTANE SPRUCE-FIR FOREST, then lost with a member of Renewable Energy Vermont in a dry White Pine forest.
  2. Annette Smith October 5, 2011 06:25AM
    Mr. Carr obviously don't know much about wind turbine development or Vermont's mountains. Steve Wright was the climate change person for National Wildlife Federation for nearly a decade, in addition to being a former Fish and Wildlife Commissioner in Vermont, so I think he does know a thing or two about what he's talking about, especially where it concerns our natural resources. He has no financial interest in this issue. Mr. Mott, on the other hand, is a wind developer and has a financial interest. He doesn't seem to know (or care) much about Vermont's natural resources, but sells his lofty ideals as Kool-Aid to willing subjects. Around the time that Steve Wright's op-ed ran in the NY Times, an article ran noting the importance of New England's forests as "one of the most important for carbon storage on the planet." See below for the link. We need to have a serious and honest discussion about this issue in Vermont where we have a unique situation and a lot to use. Our regulatory process has failed miserably. No wonder Mr. Mott likes it. He and his buddies, part of the Corporate and Government marriage that is destroying our democracy, are getting everything they want handed to them on a silver platter. With Deaths of Forests, a Loss of Key Climate Protectors http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/science/earth/01forest.html?hp A CARBON SPONGE New England forests were cut down for farming in the 18th and 19th centuries, but then regrew when fields were abandoned. The region is now one of the most important for carbon storage on the planet.
  3. William Carr October 4, 2011 11:04PM
    "vernal pools" ? Really ? "Vernal Pools". Huh. "sound and infra-sound produced by these turbines, both of which are known to cause substantial health problems." Ah. No, no, they aren't. You went out there a bit with the Vernal Pools bit, but I was going to overlook that. However, 'infra sound' ? Miles from any homes? (Causing, say, asthma ? Cancer ? Oh, no, wait. That's from burning coal, not wind energy.) I think perhaps you should read some Physics textbooks. Sound is low energy to start with and isn't going to bother someone living a mile away. After all, we're told there are no access roads there now, so how could there be people living nearby ? Do they backpack miles through the forest on their commute to and from work? If you're anti-wind, come out and say it. Don't fish around for wild claims and exaggerations. I'll show you how it's done. I'm anti-coal AND anti-nuclear. They both pollute the environment and build up nasty toxins we have trouble dealing with, and the corporate owners won't spend the money to clean up the mess. See ? It's easy. Being anti-wind energy is kind of like being pro-coal. It's the majority source of our power until we finally get the concentrating solar plants built. And Vermont may have some solar prospects but it's no Arizona.
  4. William Carr October 4, 2011 10:29PM
    "One only need mention only one thing to discredit Mr. Mott's screed. There are no "pine trees" on the Lowell Mountains ridgelines. " Really? A quick Google search shows Vermont has a lot of pine trees. If we are to believe YOUR screed, there isn't even ONE. And yet Vermont is famous for White Pines. Hardwoods make up 62% of the forests but that leaves a lot of conifers. Not even one, huh ? " 12 industrial wind sites will equate to 48 miles of ridge and mountain tops, the headwater source for clean and cold water, and 72 miles of total roads into currently un-fragmented forest." Hmm. You conclude that putting wind turbines on the ridge tops will immediately destroy the watershed ? Why? It's a wind farm, not a coal plant. No tailings, no sulfur emissions or mercury output. No fly ash piled up in dumps waiting for the first heavy rain to pour into the rivers. And as for access roads ... you're SURE there aren't any ? For that matter, parts can be flown in by blimps; they're already used in logging on mountains. Hook the windmill blades up to a blimp and fly them in. I just saw two of these go down the road this afternoon.
  5. Susan Hoyt October 4, 2011 09:24PM
    One of the best Hydrology firms in this country came to Vermont this past Spring to walk the ridge lines/sites proposed for Industrial Scale Wind Turbine Complexes in Sheffield, Lowell and two other locations here in Vermont. Princeton Hydro, LLD was hired by Energize Vermont to make an in depth, objective study of these areas and the EIS's (Environmental Impact Studies) provided by the companies who were constructing or waiting to construct these Industrial Scale complexes. A fine presentation was subsequently made to the VT. Agency of Natural Resources and the public in Lowell. http://vimeo.com/26478996 It is absolutely NOT true that these big wind corporations and the Vermont ANR did their homework, nor did they and make an accurate and honorable assessment of the destructive impacts of Industrial Scale Wind Complexes on these many miles of mountain ridge lines, specifically the headwaters of a large number of very important streams. As well, the severe erosion caused by poorly controlled stormwater that is MORE than likely to occur, was not given nearly the adequate attention in their reports. Some ineffectual so called erosion mitigating measures are included in their reports, but they are measures that either have been known to fail and/or are sorely inadequate. It is shocking to me that we, the many who have worked so hard (and continue to do so) to study industrial scale wind turbine complexes, invite peer experts to come to these sites and present objective detailed information, the many who have traveled far and wide to learn and see for ourselves, are being accused of crying wolf! INDUSTRIAL SCALE WIND TURBINE COMPLEXES ARE NOT APPROPRIATE FOR VERMONT"S RIDGELINES, with their steep grades, crucial headwaters, absorbent forests and vernal pools and their proximity to Vermonters' homes and farms. These Vermonters have a right to NOT be subjected to the sound and infra-sound produced by these turbines, both of which are known to cause substantial health problems. (Wind Turbine Syndrome by Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD.) Please watch this video presentation by two highly respected hydrologist's in Lowell, Vermont to The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources and deeply concerned Vermonters. Please watch the subsequent comments made those in attendance. http://vimeo.com/26478996 I am not anti wind. I AM anti industrial scale wind on Vermont's ridgelines, where, by the way, the wind resource is hundreds of times less than our SOLAR (and more environmentally friendly) resource.
  6. Annette Smith October 4, 2011 05:54PM
    To put Mr. Mott’s unfounded argument into perspective, using the Lowell KCW model, 12 industrial wind sites will equate to 48 miles of ridge and mountain tops, the headwater source for clean and cold water, and 72 miles of total roads into currently un-fragmented forest. The threatening of the state’s water supply and lessening the flood attenuating capacity of the these high elevations areas is what is truly disturbing. His “save the world” solution is akin to cutting off the head to save the body. We’ll have clean air and a stabilized climate, but no water to drink. There are other ways to stable energy sources and energy independence, such as with solar and other sources in areas of existing development. Mr. Mott, ISO-NE said at a public forum recently that the 500 MW of wind energy in New England is just "noise". Unfortunately for people living around these big wind machines, noise is a huge problem, something that you don't mention.
  7. Steve E. Wright October 4, 2011 02:11PM
    One only need mention only one thing to discredit Mr. Mott's screed. There are no "pine trees" on the Lowell Mountains ridgelines. That Mr. Mott does not know this is testament to his lack of understanding of the ecological functions of northeastern Vermont ridgelines. As to last fall's joint press release of Vermont's 'beltway' enviros, Mr. Mott should try reading the "Joiint Statement" issued by the collective. Paragraph 4 states: "Our support for wind energy, however, is dependent on careful siting, scale, and design of wind facilities. We believe there is a way to do wind right. We are here today because we are disappointed that the debate over the development of wind energy is too often a black and white issue of wind being either good or bad, without adequate consideration of local circumstances or concerns, the regional context, or the very real global challenges that we face." All three groups have failed to follow the very conditions to which they attest. At the time this Joint Statement was made I was serving on the Board of Directors of the Vermont League of Conservation Voters. Destroying mountains--or any intact and functioning ecosystem--in order to "save" them--is a recipe for disaster.

Please Enter Comments