The Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules heard three hours of testimony Thursday morning. As the noon hour approached, members discussed postponing a vote until its next meeting on July 6. But two members — Sen. Joe Benning (R-Caledonia) and Rep. Linda Myers (R-Essex Junction) —will be taking long vacations this summer, and they requested postponement until the full committee can meet again. That’s not until October 12.
This was the second delay in the process. LCAR heard testimony at its previous meeting on June 8, but decided another hearing was needed to give the matter its due.
The current rules are temporary and were set to expire on July 1; they will now remain in effect until at least October 26 unless the committee reaches a decision before then.
Funny thing is, it’s clear from the tone of the discussion that a majority of LCAR members plan to vote against the rules, which would mean sending them back to the Public Service Board for a rewrite. That could have easily happened on July 6, if not for the delay request from Benning and Myers.
Who appear to be the only members in favor of the rules.
The PSB crafted the temporary rules as well as the proposed permanent rules due to a legislative mandate. The permanent rules would impose noise levels of 42 decibels in the daytime and 39 decibels at night, and would also impose a rule that large-scale turbines must be “set back” from nearby residences. That requirement is 10 times a turbine’s height; since modern turbines are as much as 500 feet high, the setback standard is nearly one mile in all directions. Wind advocates have called the rules a virtual death knell for large-scale wind energy in Vermont.
The hearing ended with something of a shock over the lengthy delay.
It had opened with another shock: The Public Service Board had sent a letter to LCAR earlier this week saying it would acquiesce to the elimination of the setback requirement if LCAR members wanted.
The letter was received just before the deadline for submitting documents to the committee, and had not been publicly announced beforehand. Hence, all the witnesses were unaware of the possible change until the hearing began.
It’s a bit of a head-scratcher, in terms of both timing and content. Why so late? And why, if the PSB rulemaking process was so deliberate, exhaustive and thorough, is the board so willing to dump half of its product on short notice?
PSB officials sought to draw a precise line between proposing to dump the setback rule and expressing a willingness to do so.
“We continue to think that the setback is a very useful and simple tool to address sound and we continue to think it should be in the rule,” said PSB member Margaret Cheney after the hearing. “Nonetheless, we also think that the sound standards, which are the other half, are also protective. So if LCAR chose to ask us to remove the setback requirement, we would be amenable.”
Earlier, Cheney had told the committee, “We believe the sound standards [alone] achieve the same goal.”
If that’s true, then why propose both standards? “Setback is a simple, understandable tool,” explained PSB utilities analyst Tom Knauer, adding that sound monitoring is a complicated technical process.
During the hearing, Cheney and PSB staff defended the proposed rules, setback and all, while several committee members posed sharp questions.
“The rules are supposed to be about sound,” noted Sen. Mark MacDonald (D-Orange), the committee chair. “This appears to have drifted into areas that have nothing to do with sound.”
“I disagree,” replied PSB attorney John Cotter. “The board took aesthetics into consideration, but you must differentiate between visual aesthetics and sound aesthetics. Sounds can have aesthetic auditory impacts.”
And Cheney insisted that “the setback standard is not related to the visual impact of turbines.”
Board officials also fought back against the idea that the rules would be an effective ban on ridgeline wind, indicating that developers could seek buy-in from every nearby resident or file for a waiver from the PSB.
That’s right — if a single person living near a proposed turbine objected to the development, it could not go forward.
Its hard to believe that such a standard would be seriously proposed for any other kind of development in Vermont, from a dollar store to a nuclear plant. It’s true that a developer could apply for a waiver, but gaining approval from the current PSB would appear to be a long shot. Developers don’t take risks like that.
It’s all likely to prove academic, since LCAR is almost certain to vote down the rules sometime after leaf-peeping season. At that point, the PSB would have to resume work on a new set of rules. Given the fact that the board and the Scott administration take a dim view of ridgeline wind and most legislators are in favor of renewable energy including wind, it’s going to be very tricky to find a set of rules acceptable to all parties.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Pretty lousy reporting, as there were 13 witnesses and there is too much opinion in this. As an example, “Its hard to believe that such a standard would be seriously proposed for any other kind of development in Vermont, from a dollar store to a nuclear plant.” It is harder to believe that anyone thinks that 500 foot tall electric generators on Vermont’s ridgelines or near residences is a good idea. And as I pointed out in my remarks in response to a comment submitted to LCAR about the proposed standards being lower than those applied in Act 250 cases for quarries and other noisy operations, those operations shut down at night and weekends. The commenter, Linda Gray who has worked for AWEA and whose husband was ED of AWEA for years, complained that there is different treatment for different types of commercial developments. I agree with her. Wind turbine neighbors would be happy to accept the same noise standards applied in Act 250, operating weekdays and sometimes on Saturday mornings, but not at night or on Sunday.
The Democrats are ignoring the message from this past election. Their overreach in providing total exemptions for their industrial energy campaign donors were not at all popular. Total exemptions from all local zoning rules (including even zoning for natural resources protection and wildlife corridors); and total exemptions from Act 250. A factor in the election of Phil Scott.
Why are the Democrats on LCAR determined to ignore the election? Do they even realize that the message they are sending to Vermont voters is that they prefer to continue the Shumlin years of embracing crony capitalism for industrial energy campaign donors?
There used to be bipartisan support for protecting the ridge lines. Lasted for over 40 years until the Democrats had one-party control & began to sell out the mountains to the highest bidders and let their lobbyists write the legislation. It is such a topsy-turvy world we live in when the Republicans (at least in Vermont) are now the party that is stronger in protecting the environment and promoting smart land use, and the Democrats are now the party of crony corporate capitalism. On the other hand, it was a Republican governor, Deane Davis, who signed Act 250 into law, so maybe not so strange after all.
Here is the video of Public Service Commissioner June Tierney speaking eloquently about the wind noise rule https://youtu.be/DJgK4830aWo
This article isn’t reporting at all…it’s essentially a biased opinion piece. Which, of course, as a so-called political columnist, Mr Walters is free to write. But his leading phrases, his strong opinions, and his predictions of the future…are all really unjustified.
This isn’t real jounalism, and should be balanced with someone who has opinions on the other side. Relying on commenters to write in isn’t quite fair.
Here are the individual witness segments that comprise the full hearing.
1 LCAR PSB Wind Noise Rule Hearing, Opening and Judith Jackson, 6 22 2017
https://youtu.be/GKpfZkdhmWE
2 LCAR PSB Wind Noise Rule Hearing, PSB, 6 22 2017
https://youtu.be/DB2YYS8pTx4
3 LCAR PSB Wind Noise Rule Hearing, Mark Whitworth, 6 22 2017
https://youtu.be/3hVcx6nVEyo
4 LCAR PSB Wind Noise Rule Hearing VPIRG, 6 22 2017
https://youtu.be/yWz5XMUuo9w
5 LCAR PSB Wind Noise Rule Hearing, Robbin Clark, 6 22 2017
https://youtu.be/JWF8x2HnbpU
6 LCAR PSB Wind Noise Rule Hearing, DPS, 6 22 2017
https://youtu.be/t3xxFjFxfDs
7 LCAR PSB Wind Noise Rule Hearing, Annette Smith, 6 22 2017
https://youtu.be/3bAh6N6T59A
8 LCAR PSB Wind Noise Rule Hearing, PSB to End, 6 22 2017
https://youtu.be/SuX4YV2E8RI
If you want to know what happened at the LCAR hearing, this is good reporting:
http://truenorthreports.com/debate-over-wi…
If you want to know what happened at the LCAR hearing, this is good reporting:
http://truenorthreports.com/debate-over-wi…
Chris Ss comment refers repeatedly to the message from this past election.
Heres the message I hear. Virtually every senator or representative who supported utility-scale wind development in Vermont was re-elected. There may be a handful of exceptions I dont know about. Total = 180 races.
In the primary race for the open governors seat, the Democratic candidate who supported wind development prevailed over her two opponents who did not. In that race, there were only a small number of issues distinguishing the candidates: there is no question that wind was an important issue for primary voters.
The winning Democrat then lost to the now-sitting governor in a race which divided them on MANY issues, not just wind development. But even assuming that wind development was the issue most voters decided on (which is difficult in the face of the previously mentioned fact), thats one race out of over 150. Vermonters also elected a LT governor who does support wind over a Republican candidate who does not.
Given the facts Ive just articulated and the additional fact that virtually every statewide poll of Vermonters shows large majorities SUPPORTING wind development, I find Chriss statement hard to fathom.
Chris S’s statement about exemptions from Act 250 is an oft-repeated misrepresentation. Like all utility development, wind projects are regulated by the Public Service Board under section 248. Im not an historian, but I suspect that this bi-furcated scheme dates from roughly the same era as Act 250 itself. The criteria the Board uses to consider these projects are identical to those used under Act 250. In the decades in question, Vermont has had both Republican and Democratic governors making appointments to the PSB. In some cases, a candidate has been appointed by a governor of one party and re-appointed by a governor of the other.
There used to be bipartisan support for protecting the ridge lines. Lasted for over 40 years until the Democrats had one-party control & began to sell out the mountains to the highest bidders . Nonsense. Two highly controversial projects Lowell and Sheffield were begun under a Republican governor, who appointed not only the DPS team that participated in PSB hearings, but all of the members of the PSB who eventually permitted the project. The projects came online in the fall following the inauguration of a Democratic governor, but by then, almost all the decisions had been made.
Finally, the assumption behind all of Chris comments is misguided. LCARs function is not to make political decisions about rules, but only to decide whether or not proposed rules comply with the intent of the legislature in the underlying legislation. Maybe Im just not cynical enough, but I think the assumption that all of the LCAR members ignore their job and vote their politics demeans the members of the committee without any factual basis.
John Greenberg, say what you want, reality is all industrial wind and solar are exempt from Act 250 and all local zoning. Vermont Democratic Party has controlled both State Senate and House since 2005. Democrats are the ones who have made the industrial renewables push at behest of their campaign donors. They authored the legislation that put sole siting authority in the PSB. Democratic Legislature wrote & passed Act 61 in 2005, sponsored by Democrats Ginny Lyons and Claire Ayer. Governor Douglas signed it because it ordered the DPS to create a process to involve the public in siting decisions. Douglas no doubt took this legislation at good faith. Who knew that, beginning after Democrat Shumlin’s election in 2010, Shumlin PSB would then interpret it to mean ignore the public in favor of fast-tracking every project? Planning Commissions from New Haven, Rutland, South Burlington, etc. testified at Shumlin’s PSB, only to be ignored.
South Burlington taxpayers spent tens of thousands and countless volunteer hours updating their Comprehensive Plan and complying with Governor Kunin’s Act 200. Shumlin’s PSB said, “Who cares?” Now land zoned for natural resources protection and wildlife corridors is covered with hundreds of solar panels, fragmenting the last large wildlife habitat in town and damaging wetlands that once provided critical ecosystem filtering process all the way down to Shelburne Pond.
And, BTW, Governor Douglas and Republicans did get wise to what was going on and extent of collusion between Democratic campaign donors like industrial wind developer David Blittersdorf and the Democrats. Hence Douglas vetoed H 520 in 2007 & refused to sign Act 45 and the SPEED law in 2009 (which included among other provisions the exemption Blittersdorf wanted allowing projects on once-protected state lands). Wind power on Camel’s Hump or Mt. Mansfield, go for it!
What this issue really is about is whether Vermont will once again have strong and smart land use laws to protect people’s health and home values, as long embodied by Act 250 and the local zoning encouragement provisions of Act 200.
If the John Greenberg commenting is the same John Greenberg from Brattleboro area, long active in opposition to Entergy and its Windham County nuclear power plant, one would expect shared support for smart land use laws. People opposed the nuclear plant for some good reasons, including protection of health and home values. No one fought more against the nuclear plant than Windham County based Peter Shumlin (then a state senator not well known in the rest of the state). Many people who voted for Democrat Peter Shumlin in 2010 were shocked to realize that the same Shumlin who ran as an environmentalist did not actually believe in Act 200, Act 250, ridge line protection, open space protection, wildlife habitat protection, wetlands protection, etc. if it did not involve his own backyard.
By the time the Legislature convened last year to pass industrial energy siting reform, it was no surprise that Shumlin vetoed the first version (influenced by Republicans) that might have actually helped the many threatened homeowners & property taxpayers. Version that passed instead is the one that now puts LCAR in the driver’s seat to negate rules issued by Phil Scott. Perfect hedge by the Democrats, once again putting industrial energy ahead of taxpayer health & home values.
Shumlin even attacked the low-income, working class and elderly residents of Winooski and South Burlington regarding the F-35 fighter jet basing, noting that people who live in Chittenden County choose to live near an airport (as if he didn’t choose to live in Windham County near a preexisting nuclear plant).
Environmental justice solely for Shumlin’s property or Mr. Greenberg’s property is not environmental justice at all. It is unfortunately just classic NIMBYism.
“Pretty lousy reporting” says Annette Smith, “This isn’t real journalism” opines VtPolicyAnalyst. Walters is a POLITICAL COLUMNIST, PEOPLE!!! It says so right under his photo! You can disagree with his opinion (yes, that’s what columnist’s have, opinions). He’s not simply reporting events, that’s what……. wait for it…… reporters do. He’s listening to people from all sides of an issue, then forming an opinion and writing that opinion, IN HIS POLITICAL COLUMN, where opinions are written. Is he biased? Of course, we all are. Annette Smith’s bias is that she ignores the fact that there aren’t any scientific studies that show physical harm to people from large-scale wind, but instead she relies on anecdotes and hearsay, and reports them as fact. Guess what? She’s entitled to her opinion, even though it’s based on those anecdotes and hearsay. So, the lesson here is, reporters report, columnists opine, and Annette Smith reports her opinion as fact.
Chris S repeats his alternate history as though it will suddenly become accurate the second time around.
Section 248 is decades old and was NOT written (or re-written) for the special benefit of wind or solar developers. Since he now brings up VY, its worth noting that it too is regulated by the very same process. These projects are all exempt from Act 250 because they are regulated by a separate provision of the law. Why not say that every non-utility development is exempt from the provisions of section 248, which require, as Act 250 does not, that the project demonstrates that its completion is in the public good?
The argument about legislative control is equally inane. Governors, not legislatures, appoint the members of DPS and the PSB (Some appointments require senate confirmation). Jim Douglas was governor when Sheffield and Lowell got most of the needed permits, and he appointed all of the members of the PSB who made the ultimate decisions during the early months of the Shumlin administration. The Shumlin PSB consisted entirely of members appointed (or re-appointed) by Jim Douglas until 2013, when Shumlin appointed Margaret Cheney.
Finally, yes I was (and am) an anti-nuclear activist. As someone quite involved with the issue beginning before Peter Shumlin was elected to the legislature, I can assure Chris S that hes quite mistaken in stating: No one fought more against the nuclear plant than Windham County based Peter Shumlin (then a state senator not well known in the rest of the state). Actually, Peter Shumlin never opposed continuing operations at VY until 2012 and in his early senate terms actually impeded various efforts to shut it down earlier. He opposed extending the life of the plant AFTER 2012, first in his last terms as state senator, then as governor.
Walters writes a political column called Fair Game, once a week. This article strays from his prior good reporting on this issue where he acted as a reporter, while in this one he’s returned to his blogger biased days that his editors promised me he would be restrained from doing. Repeating that there are no studies showing health effects does not make it true. What the wind industry relies on are cherry picked literature reviews paid for by industry and governments with an agenda to promote wind energy. Many good studies about the human response to wind turbines are available and in the record at the PSB in numerous dockets. It is universal that people living in close proximity or downwind depending on topography and terrain are experiencing “annoyance” (a medical term), sleep deprivation, headaches, ringing in the ears, nausea, vertigo, and other symptoms such as cardiac issues that arise from the continuous exposure to a full spectrum of noise generated by these open air noise sources. There is no mystery about what is happening, scientifically. The mystery is why it is so hard for people to have compassion and understanding for the people who are affected.
Ms. Smith is accurrate. The issue with this article is that it reads like a piece of reporting, when it actually is an opinion piece. Mr. Walters is entitled to his own biases, most definitely, but they should stay in his “Fair Game” column, where as a political columnist he can attack anyone and everyone, and let accurracy fall by the wayside.
If you read this article and compare the style to most of those in his Fair Game section, you will see stark differences. That is essentially the problem. The style has changed, but the biases remain.
John Walters is still suffering from too much cake and coffee with Klein. Oh, that’s right, the cake came from Shaws and the “ethics” committee.
Still, too much Klein.