Scott’s Push for Wind Moratorium Faces Tough Odds

1. Why is anyone giving Chris Bray the time of day on this topic? He has no compassion or concern for the harm being done to people or the environment by big wind turbines. He is also delusional if he thinks the planning process that the Shumlin administration has put in place is working. It is not playing well in public. And seriously, a job killer? Like the ones who mop up the oil in the nacelles? Or plow the roads so the service technicians who fly in from out of state to do the maintenance? Sorry, the wind industry is not about jobs. Well, except for the four lawyers who make lots of money making sure that no problems get addressed and instead people suffer.

2. Act 174 was nothing more than a true whitewash. It was an attempt to make the Legislature appear like it was addressing the problems with Big Wind, while it actually did next to nothing. It has no teeth. Towns still have virtually no say when it comes to PSB decisions, and those residents affected by these giant turbines have even less.

   Even Renewable Energy Vermont privately admits to the major problems associated with Big Wind…the significant environmental damage, the roads on our ridges, the impact upon wildlife, the noise, etc. However they won’t say this publicly. Instead, their main focus now is just on solar.

   I was pleased fhat Ms. Hallenbeck did mention that Scott’s hands are not tied. His appointments for a Public Service Commissioner and PSB Chair have the potential to change the State stance on this issue. Both took direction from Shumlin, and even groups on the left felt these organizations were corrupted and the process broken. Look no further than VT Gas…regardless of the lies and inaccuracies the company presented, the PSB always gave them the OK, and at times even shut-out the public from participating.

   Good article, Terri.

3. Nasty personal attacks on legislators working for us don’t help your cause. I have Vermont friends and family who have good paying jobs working in the wind power field, and none of them drive snow plows for out of state technicians or clean up oil spills.

4. I’d like hear more detail about these so-called VT jobs that Eddo refers to? Are they at places like NRG, which makes parts and components for many various industries, not just wind, at the National level? A company like that is not in the slightest dependent upon VT’s small wind projects. Please provide specific info, if you could.

   To the best of my knowledge these large towers in VT are manufactured out-of-State, installed and maintained mostly by technicians from out-of-State, and the energy credits and profits largely go to companies from out-of-State.

   There are places wind makes sense. The Midwest and Southwest, offshore, even Ellenberg, NY, where very large projects can be built. Vermont’s ridges are not only fragile, but they’re our State’s identity. We went to great pains to protect them from the Green Mountain Parkway in the 1930s, why are we destroying them now?

5. I’d like to see wind projects located on the summits of ski areas. There would be several advantages to this. 1. There would be little if any additional environmental impacts since these mountains are already developed and have infrastructure in place. 2. Ski areas are incredibly energy-intensive operations with a heavy carbon footprint. Wind-power makes sense as a way to reduce this footprint. 3. There is always lots of wind at the summits of ski areas. This idea makes such commonsense that I assume there are good reasons why it hasn’t already been done, but I can’t think of them.

6. I don’t see “nasty personal attacks” on anyone, Eddo, or whatever your name is. I think that Shumlin and all his renewable buddies including Bray, Klein, Burns, and Richey Whatever have shown very little compassion for the people who live near these wind disasters. As they say,” if you can’t take the heat…etc.” then don’t be a legislator. If Bray’s feelings are hurt so be it. There are many of us that would like to see him retire.

7. Tom Bisson, here is your answer about why wind turbines will never be built on ski area summits http://www.vnews.com/Ski-Resort-Expansion-…

8. @ Moses:

   “Why is anyone giving Chris Bray the time of day on this topic? He has no compassion or concern for the harm being done to people or the environment by big wind turbines. He is also delusional”

   I am not necessarily a big fan of industrial wind turbines on ridgelines in Vermont, but if this isn’t a personal attack on a legislator, for the sole reason that he has a difference of opinion from Ms. Smith about wind power, I don’t know what is. “No compassion”? “No concern”? “Delusional”? That’s not a personal attack on Bray? And this attack is probably more understated than her usual diatribes against anyone who supports wind.

9. Chris Bray is a very nice person and I’m sure I’d enjoy having dinner with him, but as chair of the Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee for two years, people on numerous issues, not just wind, have experienced a lack of honesty. Respect is earned, and instead of earning it, he has thrown good people away, after investing many hours attempting to work with him. My comment is not about a disagreement with him on the issues, it is about how he has run his committee with an agenda that has interfered with our democratic process. His comments in this article continue the charade of claiming success in giving towns more say in the planning process, while in real life the legislation he is responsible for is what is gutting the planning process by creating great confusion and interfering with the work of volunteer planners all over the state.

10. Thanks for the link to an article about wind turbines at ski areas. It tells me that maintaining a safe distance from them is needed. But it also talks about a resort that does have turbines and skiers are limited to 800 feet from them which seems reasonable and something our ski area could do. I’d like to see more consideration of ski areas as sites for wind ower.

11. Annette – Is there ANY form of industrial power generation that you dont have a problem with? When I spoke with you a couple of years ago your only suggestion was that we all go off the grid with our own little solar arrays. Thats obviously not going to work and is itself delusional. You and your little group seem to be against everything. How about telling us what you might actually be for? Otherwise you’re just running your mouth and accomplishing nothing.

12. Roy, solar technology is changing rapidly, as is battery storage. GMP is saying the same thing I have been, that the future of our energy systems are locally distributed renewable energy where communities can develop microgrids. It’s all positive, and so has my support of renewable energy been consistent over the last 17 years. My very first letter to the editor before VCE ever was formed was promoting solar as our future, that fossil fuels and especially gas are the wrong direction for Vermont. Do I support any industrial scale energy? There is probably a need for commercial and industrial solutions that differ from the small-scale community based systems. Think in terms of systems. My renewable energy system turns out to be a good model, and it is where the renewable industrialists are not being honest when they claim we can get off fossil fuels with wind. You need the renewable resource, batteries, and the generator. Until some greater breakthroughs in technology, building more industrial renewables just means we need more big power plants, and in New England, that’s gas. Smaller systems can incorporate smaller generators that can be phased out with technological advances.

13. Roys question is one I have often asked Annette (and others) The totally inadequate answer Annette provides here appears to be focused entirely on using residential solar as the electricity model for the state.

    So, how much of our electricity can Annettes model generate?

    Herewith some oversimplified calculations.

    Most residential installations will be in the ballpark of <10KW. Solar panels produce only when the suns shining, so the larger of these projects will produce no more than 20% of that. It would take more than 500 10kw solar installations to generate the equivalent of 1MW of power.

    Vermont uses approximately 600 MW at all times, and our usage peaks at roughly 1000MW. Vermont has about 300,000 households.

    Accordingly, if every household in Vermont were to build a 10kw project, then we could generate approximately 10% of our current base demand for power through residential solar. BUT: 1) not all households COULD do it even under optimal circumstances; 2) not all that could, will; and 3) not all of those who would do it will build 10kw. Based on roughly 600 KWh per month average household demand, the average Vermont residence would need to build more on the order of 4kw.

    In sum, even with all these overly generous assumptions, residential solar could potentially supply no more than 4-10% of Vermonts base demand for power (and closer to half that figure for peak power). The achievable figure would be considerably lower.

    Annette disingenuously suggests There is probably a need for commercial and industrial solutions that differ from the small-scale community based systems. Theres no probably about it. Efficiency and conservation cannot possibly eliminate enough of our demand to make up what remains with just residential solar power.

    So wheres the rest of the power going to come from?

14. “So wheres the rest of the power going to come from?”

    That’s the key question in this whole debate.

    Answer: from some source out of state as long as Annette doesn’t have to see it or think about it. And unless we can buy all of our electricity from HydroQuebec, some of that power is going to be from dirty, fossil-fuel consuming plants in the Midwest and South and nuke plants in NH. And even if we could get all of the power from HQ, many people do not consider that to be environmentally friendly.

    Now, the truth is that this is also going to be true no matter how many industrial wind turbines Vermont allows.

    The reality is that neither side — the radical, hysterical anti-wind side represented by Annette, or the “you’ve got to break eggs to make an omelet” pro wind side — seems to want to admit that no matter what, Vermont either has to import lots of dirty power, or build baseload plants within Vermont. The Governor and his allies did everything it could to shut down VY and then turned around and contracted for nuclear power from out of state.

15. It’s nice to see some actual debate on this issue. Although, I don’t see a reason for personsl attacks, and I certainly don’t see Annette as “hysterical”. She has shown valid reasons, and sound arguments, why Big Wind for the most part does not make sense for Vermont.

    Wind in Vermont does not produce much power when it is needed the most: on hot, summer days…days when it is usually quite calm. Power plants must still be built to accommodate peak demand. Solar, on the other hand, produces maximum power on these same very hot, summer days. Yet on these hot, summer days, you will see the bulk of businesses on Church Street with their front doors propped open, blowing energy-intensive air-conditioned air outside.

    And wind is certainly not what many consider “green”, as it has significant environmental consequences to our ridges, and noise and safety implications to those who live nearby. These facilities are often far from the grid, and power lines and transmission faciilities must also be built on sensitive lands.

    And the elephant in the room is indeed still consumption. Until we make a firm commitment to reduce consumption by a significant amount, we will never build enough towers, arrays, hydro dams, or any other means of non-fossil fuel production to even make a serious dent in our energy portfolio.

16. knowyourassumptions claims that no matter what, Vermont either has to import lots of dirty power, or build baseload plants within Vermont.

    First, were aiming for enough power supply to meet power demand at all times. Also, since demand is variable and generators fail from time to time, additional reserves to insure that demand will be met at every moment. Large plants running 365/24/7 appear to be a simple way to meet demand, but they create another problem: when one of these behemoths goes down (and they all do at one time or another), you find yourself needing adequate reserve power perhaps on very sudden notice to supply the large chunk of power that was being provided by the baseload plant, or confronting a grid outage. The same principle applies to large transmission lines.

    Note too that power demand is highly variable, both on a time-of-day and on a seasonal basis, but most baseload plants churn out the same amount of power most of the time. As VTPolicyAnalyst notes, VT demand is now far greater on hot summer days than at any other time of year; not very long ago, New England demand peaked on cold winter nights.

    Vermont is not an energy island; it is part of the New England grid. Accordingly, if Vermont sources generated 90% of its power needs from renewable sources (as the state plan aspires), we can draw the remainder when and as needed from the grid.

    Every KWh generated in VT is one not imported from another source. Building wind turbines in VT means right now that less VT demand is being supplied by imported power, mostly fossil fuel. The opposite is also true: blocking wind generation here means continuing to import grid power (mainly fossil-generated) from somewhere else.

17. “Building wind turbines in VT means right now that less VT demand is being supplied by imported power, mostly fossil fuel.”

    Yeah, except one thing. That’s barely true. A lot of the time they’re not working efficiently, and they’re often not working at all at peak times. So, what tiny fraction of our energy demand do they and can they supply, even if our ridgelines were covered with them? And, for what they actually produce, are they worth the cost of installing and operating them, compared to the cost of baseload power? And are they worth the non-financial costs?

    It seems that in Vermont they were being pursued aggressively under Shumlin largely for two reasons: symbolism, and a certain amount of cronyism. No thanks to both.

    You say that we can buy our excess power needs off the grid. But first of all you do not specify when and how much grid power we’re going to need. Generating a few megawatts by wind and solar but relying largely on spot buying from the grid is not a realistic solution. Second, that would mean that we have virtually no control over the cost of a large chunk of our energy supply. Lastly, if you rely on spot buying from the grid, esp. during peak, you don’t have 100% assurance that that power will be available.

    Vermont would be much better off financially by contracting for reliable baseload power. And the best solution is to build it here. Which we could do if it weren’t for hypocritical NIMBYism.

18. 1) VtPolicyAnalyst claims: Wind in Vermont does not produce much power when it is needed the most: on hot, summer days. If power were only needed on hot summer days, this would be a damning statement.

    But of course, thats not the case at all. Vermonters use varying amounts of electricity at different times, but they use SOME electricity ALL the time. So the argument does not show that wind turbines are not useful, as VtPolicyAnalyst implies, but rather as he also suggests only that solar is a better source for peak summer daytime power.

    Everyone that Ive ever met who supports wind power ALSO believes that solar is an excellent source and that Vermont needs to build more of both.

    2) The question of whether wind or ANY source is green is one that cannot be answered in isolation. All sources have issues, so the question is necessarily comparative: which ones have the least environmental impact? The question has been studied multiple times in multiple ways, and wind and solar are always at or near the top of the best sources from an environmental point of view.

    3) VtPolicyAnalyst is absolutely correct that we need to significantly reduce our demand and again, multiple studies have shown that we can do so and actually save money as a result. But generating power from better sources does not in any way imply that wasting energy is ok, nor does generating it from worse sources improve things.

    In fact, we need to save energy AND use renewable power. Energy efficiency and conservation are indeed our best sources, but they alone cannot meet our needs, which is why wind and solar are sensible additional solutions. We should be investing in efficiency and conservation as well as continuing to build out our renewable resources.

19. It might interfere with your joy in beating up on me, but those of you so inclined, how about if you propose a concrete solution? Not generalizations. What is your answer to solving Vermont’s energy needs, since you can do nothing but find fault with mine?

    An observation on the media around wind. There have been two articles since the election. One on vtdigger raised the spectre that the Windham/Grafton wind project was not over, which seemed designed to keep people in a state of anxiety. Now comes Seven Days with their spin that it won’t be so easy to stop big wind. The news is that the towns of Windham and Grafton strongly said “no” to wind, and yes, it is over. And Vermonters voted solidly for the candidate that is not in favor of wind, so rather than clobber the idea in this article, why isn’t the media investigating all the different ways that wind can be stopped? This is a global problem, with media slanted in favor of wind — while Seven Days’ new blogger claims digger is anti-wind, their coverage sure doesn’t look that way but then maybe that’s because it’s fundraising time. And the wind industry has plenty of money compared to the rest of us.

20. knowyourassumptions suggests, first, that wind turbines are not always operating efficiently or at peak times. Both points are true, but do not address the point hes challenging: to whatever extent wind turbines DO supply power, they displace supply that would otherwise have been provided by other sources.

    Wind delivered 8% of Vermonts electricity supply in 2014: https://outside.vermont.gov/sov/webservice&hellip;, p. 215 of pdf. (The power sold in Vermont does not include its renewable attributes, since RECs are sold out-of-state). If we build more wind turbines, they will supply more.

    As to costs, the most recent contract, announced earlier this year, was between Iberdrola and GMP for the new Deerfield Project. The power is being sold at 8.8 cents and GMP expects to sell the RECs for around 4 cents. That would make the cost to ratepayers highly competitive with all other sources (except efficiency) (and way below, e.g., the proposed VY contract that was declined 6 years ago).

    The last two paragraphs of this reply appear to misinterpret what I said.

    We already buy most of our power from both the grid and from out-of-state power projects. Spot market purchases are only a small portion of the portfolio.

    I advocate building as much renewable energy as environmentally practicable, which would actually reduce the amount of power bought elsewhere. Hence, the concerns expressed about NIMBYism or lack of availability do not apply to me.

21. Annette Smith:

    Youve written countless comments and op-eds to deplore the states energy plan and virtually every potential source of electric power other than residential solar. To the extent that your words become implemented policy (which thankfully, so far is not so much), new projects will not be built in Vermont.

    Of course, that doesnt mean that the state goes dark. Rather, it means that we continue to rely on the sources we currently have, which includes mainly fossil-fuel and nuclear power generated elsewhere. (Youve made it clear that you also oppose the gas pipeline here and presumably gas-fired generation as well). If thats your idea of a green energy policy, then its fair to ask you to explain the basis of your thinking.

    Meanwhile, to come here and suggest that others need to propose a concrete solution is more than a little disingenuous.

    For what its worth, more than one proposed plan is already out there, including one I wrote in broad strokes 8 years ago to map out how we could replace the power we were buying from Vermont Yankee at the time. VPIRG has written at least one report; the Douglas DPS developed a set of alternatives (in response to a legislative mandate about alternative sources to VY), and there is now a Comprehensive Energy Plan from the Shumlin DPS. Im sure there are others.

    All of these sources place significant emphasis on energy efficiency and take a hard look at the possibilities of large-scale renewable generation in Vermont: wind, solar, biomass, and hydro.

    From what I infer from your comments, you reject all of these sources except, in some cases, at micro-scale. Eliminating all utility-scale projects without proposing alternatives amounts to supporting existing resources.

22. Greenberg is right about one thing: all Annette does is: a) complain b) attack the honesty and morality of anyone who disagrees with her about industrial wind; c) constantly refer glorifyingly to herself; and d) offer no solutions to Vermont’s 1,000+MW/year electricity use.

23. John and whoever you are. You keep accusing me of not offering solutions and then when I ask you for your ideas, you continue to attack me and claim my “ask” is disingenuous, while offering more vague references. Vermont has a relatively small load of 1000 MW in a regional grid with 25,000. It is entirely reasonable for our small communities to establish microgrids and power our regions with small generation sources. You don’t like my answers, and claim you support environmentally friendly wind. This is what ridgeline wind looks like https://vermontersforacleanenvironment.wor&hellip; and it is not environmentally friendly and has destroyed some people’s lives. Wind proponents have refused to address the real problems, which has resulted in the need to ban the technology. Had windustry lovers been willing to discuss the problems and see if we can find solutions, we wouldn’t be in this position. You two commenters are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Wind energy is useless power enriching the wealthy few at the expense of many, requiring fossil fuel back-up in the form of new gas plants. This technology will be obsolete soon because of the rapid advances in solar.

24. “wind . . . has destroyed some people’s lives.”

    That allegation is very scientifically and medically questionable, at best.

    “Had windustry lovers been willing to discuss the problems and see if we can find solutions, we wouldn’t be in this position.”

    I believe this is false. Based on your hundreds and hundreds of shrill, absolutist anti-wind postings, I do not believe you would have accepted any compromise whatsoever with any industrial wind proposals. Nice try.

    “Wind energy . . . requiring fossil fuel back-up in the form of new gas plants.’

    So does tapping into the New England grid, which your so-called “microgrid” non-solution will also require.

    “This technology will be obsolete soon because of the rapid advances in solar.’

    You have also opposed solar farms.

    Your “solution” is to build absolutely nothing, anywhere near anybody, anytime, ever, turns the lights off, and shut down our industrial economy.

25. Ask Don and Shirley Nelson what wind energy has done to their lives. Oh wait, they can’t tell you because Green Mountain Power made them sign a gag under when they sold their farm to get away from the wind turbines that were making them sick. Read Shirley Nelson’s diary here, it’s in the public record http://vce.org/ShirleyNelsonNoiseDiaries20&hellip;
    And have a heart, please.

26. We’ve heard that story a billion, gazillion times. From you. You repeat the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Everyone’s heard all of your arguments against wind power. Repeatedly. Just because your anti-wind position didn’t prevail at the PSB doesn’t mean everyone didn’t hear your arguments. Good day.

27. A note about Chris Bray–

    My neighbors and I approached Chris about an industrial solar project that was proposed on adjoining property. He came to the initial meeting at my neighbor’s house, but that was as far as it went. We found him to be unresponsive, evasive, and uncaring.

    We and the Town of New Haven intervened in the PSB proceeding. I ran into Chris at the supermarket and told him that we just discovered that DPS had negotiated a secret deal with the developer behind our backs and without considering any of our evidence. He appeared sympathetic, and admitted that DPS “should have let the process play out.” Yet he did nothing. We also sent him numerous emails that he ignored. We later found out that he was ridiculing us behind our backs in Montpelier.

    If Chris had told me up front that he would not support us, I would not like it, but I would respect it. I have no respect for an elected official who smiles to your face but then completely ignores you, and even works against you. That’s cowardice in my book.

    Act 174 is a whitewash. The PSB will give a town plan “substantial deference” only if it is directly, or indirectly through incorporation into a regional plan, approved by DPS. No regional plans are in the works. And I learned the hard way through our intervention that DPS heavily favors developers and has no regard for the public. I don’t know if Chris sincerely thought he was benefiting towns or if this was just a Machiavellian pretense, but his avid support for solar developers and the fact that he completely ignored–and even mocked–his own townspeople make me highly suspicious. In any event, Act 174 is worthless as it stands now.

28. Annette Smith:

    You keep accusing me of not offering solutions. Vermont has a relatively small load of 1000 MW It is entirely reasonable for our small communities to establish microgrids and power our regions with small generation sources.

    No, Annette, it not even close to reasonable. I did the math for you in a previous comment. Making ridiculously generous assumptions, residential solar is going to get you, at best, 60 of those 1000 MW. So below, I asked you to tell us where the remainder will come from.

    Instead of an actual response, you complain that I don’t like my [your] answers. Ill be as clear as one can be: its not that I dont like your answers; its that you havent provided any. Meanwhile, Vermonters continue to consume power, which doesnt come from the power fairy.

    So your plan is to provide 60 MW using residential solar (Bravo! I agree) and allow the remaining 940 MW to come from current sources: mostly, fossil fuels, nuclear, and HQ.

    Since you dont have an even vaguely realistic plan to supply Vermonts needs, you simply cede the environmental discussion to the status quo when you oppose all proposals for change while leaving the existing utility structure in place. Ive said this to you before, and I know neither you nor your followers like to hear it.

    But while youre dithering and complaining, the power remains on; and the sources are clearly worse from an environmental perspective than those you spend your time opposing. There are lots of studies which when Vermont media didnt impose word limits, I cited for you to back up my statement. Anyone interested can simply Google environmental studies of generating sources to begin reading some. Every one Ive seen comes with an extensive bibliography.

29. Annette Smith:

    knowyourassumptions did a nice job of responding to your substantive comments about wind (at 11:04 AM today). Thanks. I too have answered all of these points in considerable detail in various outlets over the years, so I wont repeat myself here.

    But I will respond to this: Had windustry lovers been willing to discuss the problems and see if we can find solutions, we wouldn’t be in this position. You two commenters are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

    I have engaged in extensive dialogue with opponents of what you call industrial wind. I have tried hard to keep my comments factual, to validate everything I say before I say it and, when necessary, to substantiate it by citing valid scientific literature. I have done this concerning many of your claims on many different occasions. Ive always done my utmost to refrain from making or responding to personal attacks. Thats not always easy.

    To my eyes — apparently not to yours — that looks like a willingness to discuss problems.

    Ive often been a pretty lonely voice in doing this. Others join me for a while and then give up, clearly frustrated by the fact that wind opponents simply repeat the same clearly false points over and over.

    What I do is quite time consuming, and not something everyone has patience for. Unlike you, I am not paid for this. I happen to enjoy it, which is fortunate for me.

    But Ive got to tell you that it comes as no surprise whatsoever that few of your opponents want to enter into dialogue with you. Its just possible that responsibility for the problem does not reside only with your opponents.

Comments are closed.