MONTPELIER — The last major hurdle to the Sheffield Wind Project appears to have been cleared by a ruling released last week by the state Supreme Court.
The high court rejected arguments that the Public Service Board (PSB) erred in granting a certificate of public good to the Massachusetts wind company First Wind — formerly UPC — and ruled that the board’s decision was fair and legal.
“The Board applied the appropriate standard in evaluating the aesthetic impact of this project; its conclusion is supported by its findings, and its findings are supported by the record,” the Court wrote in a 14-page ruling.
First Wind applauded the ruling, saying in a press release last Friday that the “project has the potential to bring significant economic and environmental benefits to the State and we look forward to continue to work with the Town of Sheffield and the surrounding region to bring clean, wind energy to the people of Vermont.”
Members in the state’s fledgling wind industry hailed the decision, calling it a good signal for moving ahead with wind power.
“Let’s hope this decision sets a new, more positive tone that signals Vermont is open for renewable energy development business,” Andrew Perchlik, head of Renewable Energy Vermont, said in a press release.
For those who opposed putting industrial wind farms on Vermont ridge lines, the decision brings to a close an uphill battle that has been going on for nearly two years.
“The Supreme Court decision makes it unlikely we’ll be able to stop this project,” said Paul Brouha of Ridge Protectors, Inc., a citizens group that fought the project all the way up to the state’s highest court.
Mr. Brouha said he was disappointed that the high court sided with the board on both points of fact and points of law.
By affirming the decision to grant First Wind a certificate of public good (CPG), the ruling is likely to leave the board in a much stronger position than it occupied before the case was resolved.
Industrial wind farms on Vermont ridge lines have been a controversial topic ever since a proposal was put forward three or four years ago to put four wind towers on East Mountain in East Haven to serve as a demonstration project, and to prove they would be acceptable to the public.
PSB hearings on the project were contentious, and to make matters more strained, were held before a hearing officer rather than the full three-member board. When the full board finally met on the issue, it threw out the hearing officer’s recommendations, but retained his conclusion and rejected the plan for reasons of its own. Neither the public nor developers appeared to be well served.
But the recent ruling by the court emphatically suggests that the board knows what it is doing when it comes to siting industrial wind farms.
“It is evident that the Board properly exercised it discretion here, weighing the alternatives presented to it and utilizing its particular expertise and informed judgment,” says the ruling in its conclusion.
“We find no basis to disturb its conclusion that this project, with appropriate conditions, complies with the statute and promotes the general good of the state, and thus, is entitled to a CPG.”
In an interview Tuesday, Lawrence Mott, a developer and Renewable Energy Vermont board member, said one of the most important effects of the decision is that it upholds the regulatory process.
“From a citizen’s point of view, it works,” he said, adding at the same time that the permit process “needs to have a tighter time frame.”
But overall, said Mr. Mott, Vermont is being well served by the PSB.
In taking its appeal to the high court, Ridge Protectors argued that the board had erred by failing to properly apply the criteria for a certificate of public good. Among the issues raised in its appeal was the board’s finding that, while a wind farm would be inconsistent with traditional uses in a rural area as defined by the regional plan, such an inconsistency alone was not enough to stop the project from going forward.
The high court found, however, there is nothing in the rules that would require the project to adhere strictly to the regional plan.
“The Board need only give ‘due consideration’ to the recommendations of the municipal and regional planning commissions in deciding if the project ‘will not unduly interfere with the orderly development of an area,’” said the court.
In granting a CPG, the board imposed a condition on First Wind that it “make all reasonable efforts” to secure stable price contracts. If such long-term contracts were unavailable, the board said, it would review its condition.
The Department of Public Service, the public’s watchdog in such cases, wanted more of an ironclad condition. A CPG, it argued, should be granted only on condition that First Wind enter into such stable contracts — a position also advanced by the Ridge Protectors.
The high court, however, ruled that the board had acted reasonably and within the criteria.
“The Board acted within its discretion in post certification proceedings to evaluate UPC’s compliance with the conditions imposed,” it said.
No construction start-up date has been set for the Sheffield project, according to John Lamontagne, First Wind’s communications director.
Still pending is a storm water permit from the state that is being challenged by Ridge Protectors.
The case has gone to the Environmental Court on an appeal from the Protectors that says the wind company should be required to do an assessment of the five streams where the project’s discharge will go.
In addition to the Sheffield project, First Wind has wind farms in the nearby states of Maine and New York. An investigation by the attorney general’s office into the company’s business practices in New York was dropped without any charges being brought.
Important Stories 
