Published on July 6, 2005

MONTPELIER — The debate over whether wind farms will be beneficial for tourism and development in the Northeast Kingdom appears to have been ratcheted up a notch by the Department of Public Service.

Recently the department, which was formed to serve as public watchdog in the energy and power industry, raised a cautionary — if not red — flag over the proposal to temporarily place a wind test tower on East Haven Mountain.

What triggered the department’s concern were criticial comments by the Burke business community, which is apprehensive about the effects a wind farm might have on the Burke Mountain ski area and Burke Mountain Academy.

In a letter to the Public Service Board (PSB) dated June 23, the department noted that the East Haven test tower raises “significant issues” within the criteria the board uses to determine if a project can go forward.

Those issues deal with the “orderly development of the region” and “economic benefits,” and the department made it clear that its concerns were founded within the Burke community.

“The department’s recommendation is based on comments of representatives from Burke Mountain ski area and the academy should a wind measurement tower be constructed on East Haven Mountain,” said the letter to the PSB from the department’s special counsel, John Cotter.

In an interview last week, Mr. Cotter, citing attorney-client privileges, declined to go into detail on how or why the recommendation was made.

But the department has asked the board “to take evidence on these two issues” prior to reaching a decision on the East Haven Mountain project.

That project, filed along with two others, one in Brighton and one in Ferdinand, seeks to test wind speeds and direction over a five-year period. The project developers are one and the same as East Haven Windfarm, the Montpelier-based company that presently has a petition before the board to erect four state-of-the-art wind towers on East Mountain, which is only a few miles north of East Burke.

At a public hearing in Island Pond last month hosted by the PSB, Burke Mountain Academy Headmaster Kirk Dwyer warned that a test tower on East Haven Mountain could present an “unjustifable risk” to both the academy and the ski resort.

Mr. Dwyer also noted that Burke is one of the economic engines that drives an area where unemployment has traditionally been high. And while he advised that the Burke community is “guardedly optimistic” about economic development in the area, he predicted a wind tower next door would present an undue economic risk.

Because the case is pending before the board, Mr. Cotter declined to engage in any discussion of what goes into the criterion “orderly development of a region.” And apparently neither the board nor the public can expect much clarification from those charged with planning the region’s development.

The Northeastern Vermont Development Association (NVDA) is about to unveil its new regional plan for public review and comment. On the controversial issue of wind farms sited on Northeast Kingdom ridge lines, however, it straddles the fence.

“I don’t know if it clarifies anything at all,” noted NVDA’s director, Steve Patterson, who repeatedly emphasized that the new plan is still in its preliminary stages.

Generally speaking, he said, the plan supports the construction of wind towers because wind is too important to be excluded from the region’s energy mix.

On the other hand, he continued, towns who ban their construction will not be in violation of the plan.

“If a town doesn’t want them, that doesn’t mean they are not in compliance with the regional plan,” Mr. Patterson advised.

Attempts to reach Windfarm Vice President David Rapaport Tuesday were unsuccessful.

The Department of Public Service raised no issues with the company’s petition before the board to place test towers on ridge lines in Ferdinand and Brighton.

No decision has yet been made on whether the board will act on the recommendation from the department and take more evidence on East Haven Mountain.