Published on August 2, 2009

MONTPELIER — The Department of Public Service has weighed in with a host of negative findings for UPC’s plans to develop a 26-turbine wind farm on the ridge lines of Sheffield and Sutton.

Citing insufficient evidence of the project’s impact in such areas as orderly development, economic benefits, and municipal service, the department has told the state Public Service Board that it does not support granting the company a certificate of public good.

That could be subject to change, though, as UPC’s petition for a certificate of public good (CPG) before the board is in its early stages.  Moreover, in speaking for the department as director for energy efficiency, Robert Ide repeatedly notes that its recommendations “should be considered preliminary” at this stage in the process.

Yet, among the more serious objections raised in what is known in the process as the department’s prefiled testimony is that the project will be inconsistent with the land use provisions of the regional plan.

“The proposed project is to be constructed in a Rural Area on an undeveloped site that is proximate to several nearby residences as well as the King George School,” writes Mr. Ide, a former senator from Caledonia County.

“Given the previously undeveloped nature of the site and the nearby residences and school structures, and the large size of the proposed project, the turbines will be out of scale and out of character with the surrounding area.”

That conclusion is radically different from the one the department took regarding the East Mountain project that was recently denied a CPG.  In a footnote that reinforces a widely held view that wind farm proposals should be evaluated on a case by case basis, Mr. Ide argued that the department can hold opposing views for two different projects.

In its conclusion that the East Mountain project was not inconsistent with a similar regional plan, Mr. Ide says the department took into consideration “the small size of the project, the previously impacted nature of the site due to its former use as a Cold War radar facility, and the site’s isolation from any nearby residences.”

In the pending case before the board, the department’s prefiled testimony also leans heavily on the regional plan’s energy strategy, and the gyrations the plan went through this spring as controversy mounted over erecting industrial wind farms on the area’s ridge lines.

Presently, when it comes to energy, the plan favors an economy of scale.  As noted by Mr. Ide, “the plan emphasizes renewed contracts with existing resources, reduction in demand through conservation and efficiency, and use of alternative generation sources such as small wind and power.  Large scale projects such as UPC’s proposal are inconsistent with strategies listed in the plan.”

One of the strengths in the department’s recommendations is that it is drawing its arguments from a regional plan that is only a few months old.  Adopted by the Northeastern Vermont Development Association early this summer, the plan reflects a shift in attitudes toward big wind.

“The initial draft plan advanced a positive position on wind projects,” noted Mr. Ide.  But as a result of additional input, he added, “the plan that was ultimately adopted took the far more neutral position on commercial wind facilities….”

The impact of industrial wind farms on the area’s orderly development surfaced very early in the debate when East Haven Windfarm sought a CPG last fall to put a test tower on East Mountain.  Burke businessmen, worried over the impact the tower would have on tourism, objected and were given additional time to present their case before the board with help from the Department of Public Service.

The deadlock was eventually resolved when the businessmen bought the development easement on East Haven Mountain, assuring them a say on whether a tower would be erected.  In the UPC’s case, however, the issue of orderly growth is tangled up with education rather than tourism.

“The area is ripe with private education facilities built upon the business model of private tuition for educational purposes,” writes Mr. Ide, who goes on to list several schools in the area.  And fears that a wind farm could cause the closing of one of those schools, the King George School, says Mr. Ide, have not been addressed by the petitioner.

The school employs 47 full-time staff and accounts for a net annual salary of $1.2-million.  It pumps another $750,000 into shops in the surrounding communities.  But reservations expressed by the school that it may have to close down if the turbines are installed has prompted Mr. Ide to suggest the benefits of wind may not outweigh the impact.

“The risks raised by the King George School are unanswered at this time, but the risks of the school’s demise, in my opinion, could outweigh the benefits of the proposed wind generation project.”

As far as economics go, the department is also concerned if the project will benefit the state.  Mr. Ide says that UPC has not submitted enough testimony for the board to make a decision.  What is missing, he writes, are “the specific purchase terms of the potential contracts with Washington Electric and Vermont Electric Cooperative.”  Moreover, he is concerned that economic benefits stemming from excess capacity “may flow outside of Vermont.”

Overall, the department’s prefiled testimony may be seen as a wake-up for UPC to do more homework.  Just how it will square concerns over regional planning and growth will undoubtedly be one of the key issues when the hearings get under way before the Public Service Board.