Published on December 17, 2003

MONTPELIER — A bid to get a quick decision on the controversial project to erect four wind towers on East Mountain ran into a wall of resistance here Thursday as hearings got underway before the Public Service Board (PSB).

East Haven Windfarm’s attorney, John Castle, told the board that, given the public benefits to be derived from the project, a decision should be timely.

Lower electric costs, he said, “is one of the essential benefits to the state.”

But others argued that there is more at stake than cheap electric rates.

“Speed will benefit the applicant,” argued Brian Kelly, one of several Burke property owners opposing the project. “So, time may be in favor of the public good.”

“Due process needs to be followed, and to cut that short would be a mistake,” advised businessman Jody Fried, who runs a store and pub in East Burke.

What prompted their reaction was a scheduling proposal from East Haven Windfarm asking the PSB to hand down a final decision on the project by the end of March 2004.

Mr. Castle told the three-member board that while the project raised some new issues for Vermont, it is a straightforward project with few complications.

As drafted by Windfarm’s president, Matthew Rubin, a Montpelier alternative energy entrepreneur who has developed three hydro plants on the Winooski River, the proposal calls for erecting four 335-foot towers on top of East Mountain in East Haven. The towers, which will be erected on the site of a former government radar base, will produce six megawatts of power. Plans call for the power, enough to run 3,000 homes, to be sold to Lyndonville Electric Department (LED) at about 5 percent below current market price.

Estimated costs of bringing the wind turbines on line fall between $11-million and $12-million. And for the developers, the quicker the towers go up, the quicker they can start generating revenue.

The hearing Thursday, December 11, was Windfarm’s first step in a quasi-legal Act 248 process, similar to Act 250, to obtain a certificate of public good. Approval for such a certificate is in the hands of PSB, a three-member board appointed by the governor. Any developer who plans to put a generating project into play needs the board’s approval.

The hearing attracted a standing-room only crowd. Windfarm’s proposal is the first among roughly four pending proposals to put wind turbines on ridge lines located in the Northeast Kingdom.

The hearings also come at a time when the Douglas administration is rolling up its sleeves to draft a policy on putting wind towers on public land. Planning for public hearings is already underway at the Agency of Natural Resources. The issue is also scheduled to come before the Legislature this winter.

Ideally, Windfarm’s developers would like to see its turbines up and turning by next December. To accomplish that end, however, they will have to erect the towers by late summer or early fall.

“That’s what is driving the schedule,” said Mr. Castle. He added that the turbine supplier has assured his client that it could received the high-tech windmill four months from the day the order is placed.

Besides looking for a March 31 decision, Windfarm’s proposed schedule also calls for a public hearing in Essex County the first week in January.

While a ruling on the schedule will be made later by PSB hearing officer Kurt Janson, it seemed unlikely by the end of Thursday’s hearing that Windfarm will achieve the deadlines it wants.

About two-thirds of the way through the hearing, Mr. Janson told the developer he would like to accommodate him, but quickly added he didn’t think “what you propose really works.”

Many of those following the proliferating interest in developing wind power on Vermont’s ridgelines expect debate over the project to be hard and protracted.

Highly critical of the proposed schedule was the representative from the Department of Public Service, the state agency that advocates on behalf of the public on electric projects and proposed rate hikes that come before PSB.

John Cotter called the company’s deadline “unrealistically aggressive,” and warned the board that the project was not cut and dried.

“This is not going to be a simple 248 project,” said Mr. Cotter as he surveyed the room and noted the large number of people who had turned out for the preliminary hearing.

Roughly 14 people asked for party status in the hearing process. Only people with party status, or interveners, as they are called, can submit evidence in a case. And it’s that evidence that determines the basis for the PSB’s final ruling.

“Public comments are certainly taken seriously by the board, but they do not constitute evidence,” noted Mr. Janson, who makes the final ruling on who or what group will be awarded party status.

Mr. Castle said Windfarm was not opposed to anyone seeking party status in the process, noting the company wants the hearings to be open.

Objections to a short deadline were also raised by the Kingdom Commons Group, which opposes putting industrial wind towers on the region’s ridgelines. David Grayck, the group’s attorney, told the board that he would need more time to line up expert witnesses and members of the group who wish to testify.

“It takes a little time to round up the flock,” said Mr. Grayck, speaking of the coalition’s shepherd role in organizing opposition.

Windfarm’s call for a quick and expedient hearing process also raised concerns over making a site inspection during the winter. Mr. Castle assured the board that his clients have a close relationship with a snowmobile group who would be happy to provide transportation to the site.

But Mr. Kelly argued that transportation wasn’t the only problem. Winter’s severe weather, he suggested, would make visitors to the site “anxious to look around and leave.”

An administrative hurdle that no one succeeded in clearing last week is the role of Lyndonville's electic utility in the project. As it stands now, the plan calls for LED to upgrade its transmission line so it can receive the power generated by the wind turbines. That power, by the way, will be transmitted eight miles down the Radar Road on a line owned by Windfarm. At the point where the two transmission lines come together, or where the golden spike is driven, is where the upgrade comes into play. Before that upgrade can be made, however, LED must also apply for and receive a certificate of public good.

So far, the PSB has not received an application from the municipal electric company, and there was argument last week over whether a final decision could be made on Windfarm’s project before LED’s transmission upgrade request has been resolved.

Mr. Castle told the board that it made good sense to go ahead with Windfarm’s project first, since it is the one raising controversial issues.

“It’s got towers and size that Vermont hasn’t seen,” he said.

But Mr. Cotter of the Department of Public Service argued that, since the transmission upgrade was the key to making the project work, the applications should be considered side by side.

Otherwise, he said, we “might find ourselves stuck in some mud a few months from now.”

A decision on the PSB's time schedule is expected to be released soon. Its clerk, Sue Hudson, said Tuesday that the board is working on the details of holding a public hearing.