Published on August 10, 2006

MONTPELIER — More hearings have been ordered on the controversial plan to erect a wind test tower on East Haven Mountain.

A hearing officer with the Public Service Board (PSB) ruled late last month that a round of technical hearings is required before a decision is made on the project.

In a five-page written ruling that touched on a number of issues, Hearing Officer Ed McNamara said he was calling for more hearings even though the supporting argument — that a tower might “chill development” at Burke Mountain — appeared tenuous.

“However, given the apparent importance of Burke Mountain to the local economy, it is prudent to further explore the issues involving the economic benefit and the impact on orderly development of the proposed project,” he wrote in an order dated July 29.

The East Haven test tower is part of a three-legged project being proposed by East Haven Windfarm, a Montpelier-based company headed by Matthew Rubin. The company has petitioned the board to erect three test towers along ridge lines in Essex County.

In addition to East Haven Mountain, the company would put test towers on unnamed mountains in Ferdinand, a member of the Unorganized Towns and Gores, and in Brighton.

In his ruling, Mr. McNamara said the new round of hearings would be limited to the test tower on East Haven Mountain.

The decision to schedule more hearing comes in response to recommendations offered late in June by the Department of Public Service.

In reviewing the proposal, the department — the public watchdog over energy developments — recommended that the PSB take a longer look at concerns expressed by the Burke business community during a public hearing earlier this summer.

Voiced most assertively by representatives of Burke Mountain Ski Area and Burke Mountain Academy, those concerns raised questions on some of the larger issues that have persistently dogged the wind farm debate.

Will giant wind towers stretching more than 300 feet high have an adverse effect on tourism by turning people off who travel miles to recreate in one of the most pristine mountainous areas of the Northeast? And will such a development lower property values?

Those questions evidently struck a nerve with the Department of Public Service, which sees no comparable issues at the other two locations. Indeed, in a letter to the board last month, the department recommended that the sites in Brighton and Ferdinand receive a certificate of public good so the project could go ahead even while the debate continued over East Haven Mountain.

The single test towers at each site would take measurements over a five-year period. In the past, wind measurement towers have gone up without encountering any obstacles. But the growing public debate over wind farms on Vermont ridge lines has all but ruled out business as usual between independent power producers and the state agency that regulates them.

Moreover, the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) has become an increasingly active participant in the debate. In the present case before the board, the agency filed comments saying it could not reach a decision on the project because the company — East Haven Windfarm — had not provided sufficient information on site location and construction.

Mr. McNamara noted in his ruling that the agency position “raises a significant issue” on the project’s impact on “soil erosion, wetlands, water quality, and wildlife.”

The ruling requires the developer to “provide further testimony on the potential environmental impacts of the exact placement of the wind measurement towers and the access to the sites for maintenance purposes.”

Still pending for East Haven Windfarm is its petition to erect four state-of-the-art wind turbines on East Mountain, which is also in East Haven. A recent press release from the company said it expects a decision from the PSB this fall.

Parties in the present case have until Wednesday, August 10, to propose a hearing schedule.

Based on past decisions by the board on test towers, Mr. McNamara found that the project “does not raise a significant issue with respect to aesthetics.”