History suggested their chances of doing better in the more renewable-energy-friendly House were nil.
“Over the past few years I’ve been here, nothing has ever gotten better in the House energy committee until now,” said Mark Whitworth, president of Energize Vermont, an organization that has been fighting large wind projects.
So it was an odd sight this week as wind opponents cheered the unanimous passage of a revised energy bill in the House.
“All seven towns that I represent in my area have had wind impact,” Rep. Vicki Strong (R-Albany), said on the House floor Tuesday. “Their voices are being heard. I appreciate that.”
The House bill, which passed 142-0 on Tuesday and was affirmed by a voice vote Wednesday, directs the Public Service Board to establish sound limits for wind projects through the state’s rule-making process. The sound limits would apply to any future wind projects. Wind opponents are optimistic the new sound limits will be lower than existing measures.
The House bill would also give towns more say as the Public Service Board approves solar and wind projects, if they establish in town plans where renewable projects can go. Wind and solar critics found this, too, more to their liking than the Senate version, as it’s a less complicated process.
After the vote, House Natural Resources and Energy Committee Chair Tony Klein (D-East Montpelier) was in an unusual position: He was winning praise from wind foes, who’ve long been his adversaries, and getting snarky texts from renewable energy developers, who’ve long been his fans.
Klein, who is retiring from the legislature this year, said it was important for him to settle the issue before he left. A growing cadre of towns have complained they have no say as new solar and wind projects are proposed around the state.
“This was an issue that was not going away,” Klein said. “If we didn’t do something this year … the voices would have gotten louder and the divide would’ve gotten greater.”
Rep. Marianna Gamache (R-Swanton), whose town is the site of a proposed seven-turbine wind project, credited the legion of local residents who returned to the Statehouse regularly this year with sending a strong message. Many of those visitors wore neon green vests to declare the pending danger they feel.
Though they were visible, Gamache said, she wasn’t sure the House would give them relief. “I was very surprised, but delighted,” she said.
Far less delighted was Anthony Iarrapino, a lawyer who represents the Swanton wind developers. It’s unfair for a developer to sink hundreds of thousands of dollars into planning a project, only to learn that sound standards may change later, he said.
“The House is operating in ignorance of the real-world impacts on pending projects,” he said.
Without those wind projects, he argued, the state can’t meet the renewable energy goals this same legislature passed last year. “We’re not going to get to the targets with solar in parking lots and a single wind turbine in backyards,” Iarrapino said.
He said he hopes those provisions will still change as the bill goes to a House-Senate conference committee to work out differences in the two versions.
Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee Chair Chris Bray (D-Addison), said Wednesday he still has to study what the House did. “I’ll look at the pros and cons,” he said.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
All you need to do to understand what the House did is listen to this testimony by a noise expert
http://vce.org/SteveAmbroseHNRE_041516.mp3
and read this letter submitted to the PSB today that summarizes the status of wind turbine noise complaints in Vermont
http://vce.org/VCE_7250_DeerfieldWind_0427…
Thank you to the House for listening. As for Anthony Iarrapino, why do you want to inflict harm on the people of Swanton and Fairfield? Because that is quite literally what you are promoting.
It is great to see that the House listened to actual citizens of Vermont and put measures into S.230 to protect any more Vermonters from being harmed by Industrial Wind Turbines.
I can’t imagine a project wanting to put in bigger turbines closer to homes when there are issues with all the existing projects in Vermont. Why would anybody not want a standard that protects citizens?
Thank you to the house for standing up for the citizens. It was an incredible feeling as they went through the roll call vote and EVERY representative voted for the bill.
Now, we will see if the Senate will protect citizens also.
Tony Klein and his House Natural Resources & Energy committee finally had enough decency and courage to do what should have been done years ago. It is now time to see what Chris Bray is truly made of. It’s Legacy time Chris … It’s time to see what your true values are. No more linguistic tongue twisting speeches here; just time to do the right thing for the citizens of VT and uphold this bill
A 2004 study by Eja Pedersen called “ Perception and Annoyance Due to Wind Turbine Noise; a-dose-response relationship “ shows that noise exposures over 32 dBA start to be highly annoying to some residents, the curve then rises sharply and at exposure levels at or over 40dBA , 25% of the population experience “high annoyance”.
A 2007 study by Eja Pedersen published in the British Medical Journal, concluded that “Annoyance was associated with lower sleep and negative emotions… Annoyance is an adverse health effect… The high prevalence of noise annoyance could be due to the intrusive characteristics of the aerodynamics…swishing, whistling, pulsating/throbbing, and resounding”. The study clearly distinguished “a specific characteristic to wind turbine noise separate from other industrial noise”.
According to Robert Rand , a Maine acoustician who has independently studied turbine noise extensively, “wind turbine sound levels over 35 dBA in quiet rural areas are related to widespread complaints, escalating nuisance, and emergence of sleep disturbance and health effects for vulnerable people such as elderly, children, and people with pre-existing conditions.”
The nighttime noise levels for wind turbine are set at 45 dBA . Those levels put Vermont in the medieval times for protection of its citizens against the adverse health effects of turbines noise .
The House has heard those facts , it has voted unanimously to protect all Vermont residents .
Maine has done it , New Hampshire has done it. How could Vermont call itself a leader in the fight against global warming when it refuses to be just a fair player in protecting its own citizens from unwanted noise pollution ?
We strongly urge the Senate to join the House in doing what is their duty in assuring the health and welfare of their constituents. .
I would ask the existing and prospective developers, attorneys, “specialists” of Industrial Wind and Solar, what will your personal legacy be? As scientific evidence continues to gather, detailing the destruction, not saving, the quality of peoples’ lives, and, our unreplaceable planet? Who is convincing you otherwise? What are their motives? Have you truly investigated the outcomes? Have you explored alternative choices…conservation, weatherproofing, preserving the lives of people, and, environmentally safe options??
wind opponents = protectors of public and environmental health.
Perhaps in the next article you might describe them as such…just a thought to keep it real.
The people of Vermont have spoken! There are now 153 municipalities signed on to the Rutland Town Resolution demanding that their voices be heard and that Vermonters be involved in a community driven collaborative process. To date the laws and the process have been created and driven by the energy developers.
Victims of Industrial Wind have flooded the State House on a regular basis, educating, informing, and competing for compassion against the energy developers like REV, VPIRG, etc., who constantly misrepresent our position.
The small steps taken in S.230 towards addressing the renewable energy debacle is a good start towards making amends. And the 142-0 House floor vote reflected that. As we move forward with the municipal and regional guidelines to be developed, along with the sound standard, Vermont will truly learn the real motivation behind what’s been going on. Our group feels strongly that we can accomplish our goals for renewable energy generated on properly located sites, small scale and community driven, with the energy credits remaining in Vermont. If that doesn’t happen, it will confirm what the real goal may have been all along.