Published on Janaury 14, 2004

MONTPELIER — Public hearings toward a policy on siting wind towers on state-owned land are expected to get underway by February.

Several hearings will be held throughout the state, according to Mike Fraysier, the state lands director with the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR).

The state hopes to have a draft policy in place by the end of March.

“We don’t anticipate a long drawn-out process,” said Mr. Fraysier.

The hearings will be conducted by a private, independent company, Adamant Accord of Calais. Cindy Cook, a former District 7 Act 250 coordinator, will organize the hearings as well as serve as the facilitator.

The hearings mark the first step by the state to come with up with a policy on an alternative energy technology that is raising passionate concerns about the environment. The towers reach over 300 feet in height, and a growing number of Vermonters argue they will mar the natural beauty of the state’s ridgelines and undermine a tourist economy based on recreation and scenic views unblemished by development.

In some quarters, opponents have called for a moratorium on erecting wind towers, which require a certificate of public good from the Public Service Board (PSB), until the state has a policy in place.

The hearings, however, may not go far enough to satisfy their demands.

Last week before the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee, Chairman Bill Johnson of Canaan raised questions about the process to ANR Secretary Elizabeth McLain.

In the past, he noted, the process has been viewed by some as “a way to manipulate public opinion to fit the agenda of certain proponents.”

Ms. McLain defended the choice by saying an independent contractor would make the process more objective and the results less questionable.

Another reason ANR is going with independent contractor to run the hearings is that the agency manages most of the land owned by the state. And as land managers as well as environmental experts, Ms. McLain noted, ANR cannot take on roles where there is an appearance of a conflict of interests.

The state presently owns 342,000 acres of land, and as noted by Mr. Fraysier, only a very few acres of state land have the elevation, 2,500 feet or so, that wind developers desire. Among those that do, there are some, like Camel’s Hump, that wouldn’t be appropriate because of existing public uses.

Consequently, the policy that emerges from the hearings will only apply to a relatively small percentage of state land, Mr. Fraysier said.

Ironically, perhaps, since the project proposed by East Haven Windfarm has been the one to bring opponents together, the state’s policy will have no bearing on the long-term project envisioned by Windfarm’s developers, Matthew Rubin and Dave Rapaport. It is their plan to erect 50 towers on Essex County ridgelines that has struck a nerve within the environmental community.

While the land is privately owned, the state holds recreational and public access easements on the ridgelines where most of the towers in the grand plan would go. That is the land to the northeast of East Haven that was acquired by Essex Timber as part of the big Champion land deal of 1998.

No one is sure whose authority would be required, besides the owner's, to put towers on those ridgelines, which include Seneca Mountain. And the emerging state policy toward siting towers on public land is not expected to be much help.

The policy, according to Mr. Fraysier, will deal only with land owned outright by the state, and will not include lands on which it holds an easement.

The hearings will likely give environmental groups a chance to discuss the big wind energy picture and a chance to become more active participants than they have been in the East Haven wind debate that is now before the PSB.

Back in December, when the ground rules were being laid for that debate, none of the leading environmental groups in the state expressed any interest in presenting evidence to the three-member board. While most appear to favor some form of alternative energy, none have actively supported or opposed Windfarm’s present proposal to put four towers on East Mountain.

Perhaps their reluctance stems in part from the fact that the East Haven Windfarm owners are energy-conscious developers who also serve with a nonprofit private agency that has often sided with environmental groups in the past.

Mr. Rubin chairs the board at the Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG), while Mr. Rapaport, a former executive director of the group, sits on its 17-member board.

A self-styled watchdog, VPIRG defines itself on its web page as an advocacy group that “brings the voice of citizens to public policy debates that shape the future of Vermont.” At the December hearing before the PSB, a VPIRG representative told the board his group would not seek party status or offer evidence on the Windfarm proposal that is now seeking to obtain a certificate of public good.

During an interview in November, Mr. Rapaport said that VPIRG has a conflict-of-interest policy on the books that “pre-dates our involvement with this project.” And it’s a policy that is being followed with Windfarm.

“It’s why VPIRG has not taken a leadership role in this debate,” he said. “If we were not the ones doing this, they would be more active.”

Mr. Rapaport said his green friends don’t regard him with suspicion for promoting an environmentally controversial project. Still he noted that being on the other side of a proposed development would represent a change from the role he and his partner are accustomed to playing.

“It does put us in a weird position,” he said.

No schedule is yet available for the time and place of the hearings. Public comments toward the siting of wind towers on state lands will be reviewed by ANR and its partners in making energy policy, the Department of Public Service and PSB.