Senators approved a renewable energy siting bill on
Thursday but shot down amendments favorable to towns, ratepayers and victims of
industrial wind-turbine noise.
After a marathon six-hour session, the long-anticipated
energy siting bill S.230 passed the Senate by a 22-3 vote. The
Democratic-controlled body voted down a handful of key amendments, ultimately
draining enthusiasm from those who want towns to have real authority in the
siting process.
The legislation sets up a statewide planning process in
which municipal and regional planners identify preferred sites for renewable
energy and submit plans for approval by the Public Service Board. For town
plans to win approval, they must be written in a way that helps meet
ambitious renewable targets set forth in the state’s Comprehensive Energy
Plan.
Taking cues from the bill’s list of preferred sites,
town planners must identify acceptable areas for renewable energy development.
They must also specify lands the town wants protected.
According to the Senate-approved bill, the board will
give “substantial deference” to town plans unless there is clear and convincing
evidence that other factors affecting the public good of the state are
determined to take priority over the will of the people.
The bill also designates regional planning commissions
as intermediaries to work with towns and the PSB to align goals with the
state’s energy plan. The process is based on a planning model developed with
input from RPCs of Bennington County, Two Rivers-Ottauquechee and Northwestern.
Debate over town authority
Throughout the afternoon, the Democrat-controlled body
blocked amendments from state Sen. John Rodgers, D-Essex/Orleans. Rodgers
attempted to give authority to the more than 100 Vermont
towns seeking to end the Public Service Board’s rubber-stamping
of solar and wind development.
The reaction by towns has come to be known
as the Vermont Energy Rebellion.
One Rodgers amendment would have altered S.230 so that
town and municipal plans wouldn’t require the PSB approval.
“I do not believe it is appropriate for an employee of the
governor of the state of Vermont to be in charge of approving or disapproving
municipal or regional plans,” Rodgers said. “This amendment, for those of us
who support it, will state that we do have faith in our municipal and regional
planners.”
State Sen. Chris Bray, D-Addison, chair of the Senate
Natural Resources and Energy Committee, rose in opposition, saying, “I can’t
recommend such a dramatic change to the bill.” He added that the bill’s
“substantial deference” language was sufficient for town planners, and that the
amendment would break down the linkages between state, regional and town
planners.
State Sen. Ann Cummings, D-Washington, sided with Bray.
“What this bill does is say, ‘OK, towns, you have to do your part. You can’t
just say no, which is what a referendum does. You have to tell us where we can
site stuff in your community. … And if you do your part, you get a say in the
process.’”
Cummings alluded to referendums last fall in which the
people of Irasburg voted 274-9 to block two 500-foot-tall turbines on Kidder Hill,
and Swanton residents voted 731-160 to reject seven similarly-sized turbines planned
for Rocky Ridge.
State Sen. Dustin Degree, R-Franklin, who co-sponsored the
Rodgers amendment, said the real break down was between the Public Service
Department and the people of Vermont.
“I live in a district where it took almost 25 years to get a
Walmart on the corner of I-89 and Route 7, because that’s how our permitting
process and land use regulations dealt with that,” Degree said. “Yet we
have giant renewable energy projects that are forever changing the landscape
and culture of our communities that towns and municipal governments have
absolutely no say over.”
“Basically, this is saying I don’t want you to punch me in
the face, but if you are going to punch me in the face, please punch me on the
arm,” he added.
The amendment failed by a 19-6 roll call vote. Lawmakers who
voted for the amendment include Sens. Joseph Benning, R-Caledonia; Brian
Collamore, R-Rutland; Degree, R-Franklin; Jane Kitchel, D-Caledonia; and
Rodgers, D-Essex/Orleans.
No relief for noise sufferers
Another debate took place over residents who say they suffer
noise-related health issues caused by the Sheffield Wind Project
in the Northeast Kingdom, Lowell Mountain Wind, and the Georgia Mountain Wind
project in the towns of Milton and Georgia. Residents reporting sleeplessness
and seasickness have been unable to get the Public Service Board to fully
investigate and enforce noise limits included in those certificates of
public good.
One of Rodgers’ amendments said if residents believe
the terms of the certificate of public good are being violated, the PSB must
set up continuous monitoring of volume and vibrations using an
independent acoustical engineer paid for by the developer.
“We’ve been having these sound complaints and nothing has
happened,” Rodgers said. “The data gathered by one of the developers still has
not been released, so the complainants have gotten no results. The department
hasn’t released the results, and this is an attempt to get to the bottom of the
complaints and figure out who is in the right.”
Benning urged colleagues to pass the noise amendment,
saying, “If we fail to pass it, they (developers) will make an argument in
court that they don’t have any responsibility to do that.”
State Sen. Tim Ashe, D/P-Chittenden, spoke strongly against
the Rodgers amendment, as did state Sen. Anthony Pollina, P/D-Washington. The
senators argued monitoring is already possible through the PSB, and that
passing another law was not the right path to get the board to act in
a more timely fashion.
“We’re always good at passing laws, but we’re not very good
at making sure people follow through with those laws or that we enforce those
laws,” Pollina said. “I would hope that one thing we could do is make some kind
of strong decision that directs the board to do what its supposed to be doing.”
Senators shot down a provision that would have applied
the noise monitoring retroactively to cases like Sheffield, Lowell and Georgia
Mountain, and the rest of the amendment was voted down 18-8. Senators
supporting the noise amendment included Benning; Campbell, D-Windsor;
Collamore; Degree; Flory, R-Rutland; Kitchel; Mullin, R-Rutland; and Rodgers.
Who pays for planning efforts?
State Sen. Kevin Mullin, R-Rutland, put forth an amendment
to make developers pay the $300,000 appropriated in the bill to support
town and regional planning efforts. Mullin’s amendment, which aimed to take the
cost off Vermont ratepayers, was defeated by a 16-10 vote. State Sen.
Chris Bray, D-Addison, stood in opposition, saying, “We should welcome
(developers) because they’re helping the state meet its own energy goals that
we adopted into statute.”
Sen. Zuckerman
Perhaps the most interesting vote of the day came from state
Sen. David Zuckerman, P/D-Chittenden, candidate for lieutenant governor.
Zuckerman voted against the Rodgers sound-monitoring and town-authority
amendments yet voted no to the entire bill, along with Rodgers and
Degree.
When asked about his opposition to giving towns authority,
Zuckerman told Vermont Watchdog that energy policy has “always been about the
societal good and the balance with the individual,” and drawing that line in
the right place.
“We can change that line, but we have to understand all the
implications of moving that,” he said, “including reducing renewable energy
when our global climate situation would deem that as an overarching concern.”
During one exchange, Zuckerman voiced support for an
amendment requiring that a Health Department sound-distance study conducted for
a current energy docket be presented as a potential precedent for future energy
siting. Zuckerman viewed the bill language as an opportunity for
Vermonters to oppose jet noise coming from F-35 fighter planes going
in and out of the Burlington International Airport.
“As a longstanding outspoken critic of the change in noise
levels that the F-35s are going to create, this would be a great precedent to
be set,” Zuckerman said. “We would be establishing that something that is
generally for the public good, we could limit due to a noise level regardless
of its source. We would be saying sound levels matter. So for that, I’m all for
this amendment.”
Reaction from observers
Melodie McLane, a Vermonter who lives less than a mile from
the Georgia Mountain wind turbines, expressed her disappointment with the
Senate. “I would like the full-time sound monitoring — it would be a
start,” she said. “In the winter, with the doors and windows shut, we can hear
the rumble of the TV.” She added that the acceptable noise levels of 45
decibels is too high and needs to be adjusted.
Ben Walsh, climate and energy program director at the
Vermont Public Interest Research Group, agreed with senators’ decision to
reject retroactive sound monitoring of wind-energy electrical plants.
“Going back and saying every wind facility, whether or not
they have any kind of violation, has to have monitoring, that could cost us
hundreds of thousands potentially annually, forever, even if no violation ever
happens,” he told Vermont Watchdog.
No comments:
Post a Comment