News analysis: The high cost of clean power

Featured

by Chris Braithwaite

copyright the Chronicle 4-17-2013

BARTON — Solar energy may come to town soon at the Barton Solar Farm at 1603 Glover Road.  A fairly large project at 1.8 megawatts (MW), it would produce the amount of power consumed, on average, by more than 300 Vermont homes.

The project has no local permits yet, the developer said last week, and still faces the detailed scrutiny of the state Public Service Board under Section 248.  What it does have is acceptance as a SPEED program, a key ingredient in the state’s effort to make a major shift to renewable electric energy.

“We’ve come out of the gate,” said developer Robert Grant of Essex County, Massachusetts.  “Now we have to start running the gauntlet.”

Meanwhile the voters in Newport Center approved at Town Meeting a selectmen’s proposal for a $200,000 “Community Energy Solar Garden.”

Steve Mason, chairman of the Lowell School Board, is looking into working with a Westminster, Vermont, company called Soveren to install a solar system that would provide power to Lowell’s town and school buildings.  Under a deal with Brattleboro Schools that caught Mr. Mason’s eye, the schools will pay none of the capital cost, and save 10 percent on its energy bills.

And small solar installations are popping up at homes in the area at what looks like a steadily increasing pace.

The trend to solar energy is not being driven by the fact that, with no fuel required, it’s cheap energy.  It’s nothing of the kind.

But solar energy is clean energy, and in its haste to clean up Vermont’s electric energy supply, the state has compelled its utilities to buy solar energy at prices that make installations financially attractive.

Those premiums get passed on, through the utilities’ rate structure, to customers who don’t have solar panels on their roof or a wind turbine in their yard.

That’s a concern to some observers, who fear that the state’s strong embrace of renewable energy is based on more emotion than reason; that policies were adopted without due consideration of what they may ultimately cost.

There are, indeed, two programs in Vermont, SPEED and net metering, that pursue the goal of more renewable electric energy in different ways, and with no apparent coordination.

It also puzzles some energy critics that this battle to reduce the state’s carbon footprint, thus contributing to the effort against global warming, is focused on an energy sector that is already remarkably clean.  Vermonters use relatively little electricity.  Vermont residences, on average, consume 573 KWh of power a month, compared to a national average of 940 KWh.

In its “Vermont Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory,” the state Agency of Natural Resources said that, in 2008, electricity accounted for 4 percent of the 8.37 metric tons of carbon dioxide the state releases into the atmosphere.  The bulk of carbon dioxide came from heating and transportation.

The end of contracts with the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant may have altered that picture since 2008, but utilities have turned to other nuclear plants to make up at least some of the difference.

One concerned observer is Willem Post, a frequent source of widely disseminated e-mails on the Vermont energy picture.  In a recent interview, Mr. Post said he is a mechanical engineer with 40 years’ experience in the utility business.

Mr. Post is concerned about a program called SPEED, which stands for Sustainably Priced Energy Development.  It supports moderate to very large renewable projects by offering premium prices for their power.

Any sort of renewable energy gets a premium price compared with the current wholesale price on the New England grid of about 5 cents a kilowatt hour (KWh).  But solar power sits at the top of the heap at five times that rate, 27.5 cents per KWh.  Other prices, freshly recalibrated by the PSB for SPEED’s Standard Offer program, range down to a “levelized” price (which starts lower and climbs higher over 20 years) of 25.3 cents for wind projects over 100 KW, 11.8 cents for larger wind projects, 14.1 cents for farm methane, 12.5 cents for biomass, 12.3 cents for hydro, and 9 cents for landfill methane.

SPEED projects that exceed the 2.2 MW limit of the standard offer program negotiate rates with the utilities, like the 40 MW Sheffield wind project, or are owned by the utilities themselves, like Green Mountain Power’s 63 MW Lowell project.  (One megawatt is 1,000 kilowatts.)

The 2017 SPEED goal, according to its Internet site, “is to have 20 percent of total statewide electric retail sales during the year commencing January 1, 2017, generated by SPEED resources that constitute new renewable energy.”

Vermont consumes about 5.5 million MWh of power a year, so the SPEED goal is about 1.1 million MWh.

According to a recent status report, SPEED projects are already generating an estimated 570,843 MWh, a little over half its target.

That total comes overwhelmingly from big projects outside the Standard Offer Program.  Led by Lowell Mountain, nine big projects are expected to make more than half a million MWh a year, while about 30 Standard Offer projects make about 54,000 MW.

Another 213,162 MWh are expected from SPEED projects “in active development,” about evenly split between four large projects and various standard offer projects.

That would bring total SPEED production to 784,000 MWh, 316,000 MWh short of its goal.

Existing Standard Offer projects lean heavily to farm methane (14) and solar (12).  But on a list of pending projects that will take advantage of high Standard Offer Prices 18 are solar, five farm methane, and three hydro.

The clear preference for solar power worries Mr. Post, the engineer, because of its high, 27.5-cent cost to utilities.

He calculates that the Standard Offer projects already online cost utilities — and their customers — $3.4-million above the average New England grid power price in 2012.

If enough solar Standard Offer project were permitted to meet the SPEED goal, he calculates, the excess cost would rise beyond $50-million in 2017.  And that doesn’t count the cost of the big projects like Lowell, he notes.

In SPEED, he sees a program that was not rationally designed, and is running on autopilot.

He uses the metaphor of a frog in a frying pan of water, with the stove on.  The effect may be gradual, he said, “but it will eventually ruin the Vermont economy.  We will end up with rates that are significantly higher than other states, put ourselves at a further disadvantage.”

But the man who bears the title of Vermont SPEED Facilitator, John Spencer, said Monday that, with their relatively small, 2.2 MW maximum size, Standard Offer projects can’t close the gap between SPEED’s target and its current and scheduled production.  That would mean that the expensive solar projects Mr. Post worries about can’t be hurried forward at the rate he fears.

Mr. Spencer is executive director of a non-profit called VEPP, Inc., that serves as a sort of broker between SPEED producers and the utilities.

Under state law, he said, “I can only take Standard Offer programs at the rate of five MW a year.”

When it comes up against a capacity limit, solar energy is hampered by its low capacity factor of 15 percent.

Five MW of solar power would yield about 6,570 MWh a year.

To fill that 316,000 MWh gap by January 1, 2017, SPEED needs to add about 105,000 MWh a year.

So where will the renewable power come from?

Probably from out of state, Mr. Spencer said.

That is apparently a loophole in the program that has been devised to close the gap.  In 2011, when the Lowell Wind project was being debated before the Public Service Board, the SPEED program was key to its economic justification, and SPEED projects were defined then as in-state renewable generation.

But, somewhat to Mr. Spencer’s dismay, “in-state” has been dropped from the definition.  Energy from new renewable projects in other states can be counted toward the SPEED goal, Mr. Spencer said, as long as they carry their renewable energy credits with them when they cross the state line.  Vermont utilities don’t need those credits, so can sell them to utilities in other states.

Robert Dostis, head of external affairs and customer relations at Green Mountain Power, confirmed Tuesday that his utility is buying SPEED power from Granite Reliable Wind, a New Hampshire project.

That will help GMP meet its 20 percent target, Mr. Dostis said.  “It won’t be easy, but we’re working on it.”

 

Net metering

 

Net metering is a program designed for smaller renewable projects that are linked directly into a utility’s lines through a meter that spins backwards when the customer doesn’t need all the power he or she is producing.

For wind, methane or hydro systems, net metering offers the local utility’s retail rate for power from small renewable projects up to 500 kilowatts (KW) — compared with the 2,200 KW limit on SPEED Standard Offer projects.  But people who install solar panels get a premium big enough to assure them a rate of 20 cents per KWh, a bit above the state’s average residential rate of 17.7 cents.

Not surprisingly, solar installations account for 88 percent of net metered projects, and are driving a growth rate in the program that the state’s Public Service Department (PSD) recently described as “exponential.”

Net metering goes back to 1998 in Vermont, though limits on the size of both individual projects and their total statewide capacity have been increased several times.

In a recent report on the program to the Legislature, the PSD noted that the statewide limit on net metering was raised from 1 percent to 2 percent of Vermont’s peak load of about 1,000 MW in 2002, and that was doubled again to 4 percent in 2011.

In terms of capacity, the PSD said, net metering has climbed past 20 MW statewide, and so is approximately halfway to its current 40 MW limit.

However because it is so heavily weighted to solar power with its low 15 percent capacity factor, net metering accounts for considerably less than 1 percent of the state’s power consumption.

Net metering is growing fast in other parts of the state.  A state list of projects “deemed approved” from the first of this year through mid-March listed 136 statewide, but only one in Orleans County.

For people who have the means to do it themselves, net metering can be attractive.  Mr. Spencer, the SPEED facilitator, installed one at his home for $15,000.  Federal tax credits and state rebates reduced his cost to $10,500, he said, and he hopes the system will eliminate his electric bill of about $1,200 a year.  He calculates a return on investment of about 12 percent, a rate, he notes that is “pretty hard to get in other places.”

For people who want to avoid the up-front cost or the complexity of installing their own system, companies like AllEarth Renewables and its competitors stand ready to install one at no cost.  The homeowner gets a guarantee that his or her electric rates won’t rise, and the installer gets whatever tax credits, rapid depreciation and state rebates are available.

AllEarth has more recently teamed up with Green Lantern Capital to offer such deals to municipalities and non-profits like schools and hospitals that pay no income taxes.  In these deals, the tax advantages go to Green Lantern’s investors, and the municipality is offered a modest saving on its electricity and a chance to buy the system at less than half its cost after seven years.

With such a deal on the table, said AllEarth spokesman Andrew Savage, “there is no sane reason an entity that doesn’t pay taxes would bond for the full cost of a project.”

Mr. Post, the energy policy critic, objects to the idea that the many projects are being financed by millionaires who, while their consumers harvest the power of the sun, are harvesting the substantial tax benefits attached to renewable projects, along with the high rates.

Meanwhile, he said in one e-mail, ordinary Vermonters are saddled with higher power rates.

The DPS study was undertaken to answer just that question from a legislator:  “…whether and to what extent customers using net metering systems… are subsidized by other retail electric customers who do not….”

The study found that they were not.  But that was only after a cash value was factored in to reflect the fact that renewable energy doesn’t generate harmful greenhouse gasses.

Without that calculation, the study showed that net metering costs exceeded its benefits by 0.6 cents a KWh for fixed solar installations, 1.5 cents per KWh for solar systems that track the sun, and 9.1 cents for a 100KW wind generator.

Rian Fried has made a close study of renewable energy for his company, Clean Yield Asset Management, which evaluates investment opportunities for its clients in terms of both financial return and social value.

The company decided some time ago not to recommend any large wind projects, but has invested in solar companies.  Mr. Fried recently installed a net metered system at his home in Stannard.

But he’s not sure anyone at the state policy level has a handle on the long-term effects of our pursuit of clean energy.

“I think you have a political situation in this state now, where the Green Mountain Power people, Shumlin’s people, Paul Burns (the head of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group) and a lot of Progressives are talking about the public good and completely whitewashing the numbers part of it,” he said in an interview.  “There’s going to come a time again when we’re going to talk about rates.”

At Green Mountain Power Mr. Dostis said his utility looks carefully at its mix of power sources to make sure its rates remain competitive with other New England utilities.

“We have a voice in the legislative process,” said Mr. Dostis, himself a former state representative.  “In the end the ratepayers will absorb any cost.  We are very mindful of that, and we make sure the Legislature is very mindful of that.”

Mr. Dostis sees big changes ahead in his industry “as more and more people put on solar projects that meet 100 percent of their power needs.  Their bill is zero.  Other customers are paying the cost of maintaining the overall grid.  It’s an issue the Legislature will have to deal with.”

At the Legislature, Senator John Rodgers of Glover has taken the position that Vermont’s renewable electric energy goals should simply be scrapped.

“My concern is that the renewable goals are driving the Public Service Board’s decisions when they’re siting these projects.  I don’t think that’s how siting should be driven.

“Ridgeline industrial wind is absolutely the worst of all the possible tools at our disposal,” the senator said.  Instead he’d like to see more support for “small, local stuff” like farm methane and power dams that have fallen out of service.

Canadian hydro power is another option that should be expanded, he said.  “I don’t see any problem with using very reasonably priced power produced north of the border with renewable resources.”

He challenges the idea that Vermont should not only use more renewable electric power, but also generate it.  “Most of the appeal of Vermont is that we have resisted destroying our environment for the sake of commercial enterprise,” he said.

contact Chris Braithwaite at [email protected]

 

For more free articles from the Chronicle like this one, see our Editor’s Picks pages. For all the Chronicle’s stories, pick up a print copy or subscribe, either for print or digital editions.

Share

Senate passes weakened wind power bill

Featured

Wind towers at Lowell Mountain, as seen from Irish Hill Road.  Photo by Bethany M. Dunbar

Wind towers at Lowell Mountain, as seen from Irish Hill Road. Photo by Bethany M. Dunbar

copyright the Chronicle  3-27-13

by Paul Lefebvre

MONTPELIER — A legislative push to give towns and regional planning commissions more say in the siting of industrial wind towers appears to be dead, following a preliminary vote here Tuesday in the Senate.

The vote came after a marathon, contentious and at times personal debate that started at the fall of the morning gavel and lasted past the noon hour.  The result is expected to hold when the Senate takes up the bill for the third and final time later this week.

Little remains of a bill that started out as a call for a three-year moratorium on wind and morphed into legislation to reform the permitting process by adding Act 250 criteria and by putting wind development on hold for roughly eight months of study.

What’s left in the measure passed by the Senate Tuesday is a $75,000 appropriation for the creation of a Joint Energy Committee that will evaluate recommendations due out next month from the Governor’s siting commission.

Presumably, the role of towns and the regional commissions in the siting process will be revisited when the committee meets.

The vote was seen as a defeat by the two senators representing Essex and Orleans counties, whose ridgelines are prized by wind developers.

“They stripped the meat out of it,” said Senator John Rodgers, a member of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources that created the bill.

“They took the soup and left the broth,” said Senator Bobby Starr, who during the debate defended the bill as a “commonsense, down-to-earth proposal.

“All it’s asking for is for people to be heard,” he said.

After the debate was over and the vote was in, the region’s senior senator put his best spin on the results by saying a half a loaf was better than none.

A straight up and down vote on the bill was avoided when Senator David Zuckerman prevailed with an amendment that stripped out its key provisions.  It took the unusual route of being voted on twice.  Defeated the first time when Lieutenant Governor Phil Scot broke a tie by voting against it, the amendment was rekindled when Bennington Senator Dick Sears asked if he could change his vote.  His request led to a second vote by the full Senate.

During the debate, Senator Sears had spoken out against the bill and the intent to add Act 250 criteria to the siting process.  That would be an intrusion into the present permitting process, he said.  It would have the effect of “opening up a can of worms that doesn’t need to be open.”

And with his support the Zuckerman amendment passed by two votes, 16 to 14.

In a brief interview outside the Senate Chamber, Senator Zuckerman said he offered the amendment in the belief the bill was sending a “false hope message” to towns.  He said the veto power the bill gave them and the regional commissions could be taken away after eight months had passed and the legislation had sunset.

On the floor he said the bill was duplicating the work of the Governor’s siting commission, and raised the specter of global warming.

“We have a climate crisis on our hands,” he warned.

Stripped of what many believed to be its essential components, the amended bill passed easily.  If the outcome disappointed Senator Joe Benning, the legislator who a year ago spearheaded the call for a three-year moratorium, he didn’t show it during a brief interview after the vote.

He said that with a stronger vote to back it up, the bill would stand a better chance of getting a fair hearing before the House.

“It’s keeping the discussion alive and that is the most important thing of what this last month has been about,” he said.

If words could draw blood, the Senate floor might have become slippery.  Senator Dick McCormack could have been speaking about the debate when he called the issues surrounding the bill “a clash of non-negotiables.”

At different points along the way, the debate pitted one core value against another:  the public good versus local control; global warming versus protecting the environment; rural Vermont versus urban; and the urgency to develop renewable energy versus planning and evaluation.

Senators from the Northeast Kingdom led the way in charging that the most rural corner of the state was being picked on.

Early in the debate Senator Rodgers said Chittenden County didn’t want the Northeast Kingdom to stop the development of renewable energy.  With two wind farms already in place and a landfill taking a large share of the state’s waste, he argued it was time for some other region to step up to the plate.

“A nice landfill in Burlington could conserve diesel fuel and cut down on carbon emissions,” he said at one point.

The freshman Glover senator applauded the bill for giving small towns a voice and financial aid so they might be able “to compete with the deep pockets of developers.”

Senator Starr continued along that line when he characterized big wind as a runaway development that had pushed its way through his district like a bulldozer.

His constituents were complaining, he said, that they “are not being given a chance to be heard.”

Senator Diane Snelling of Chittenden County introduced the bill as a planning mechanism.  She said she “took to heart the concerns over global warming,” and defended the bill as being “very pro renewable energy.”  All the bill was asking for, she said, was a better way to site renewables.

One of the uncertainties arising from the debate was how much weight neighboring towns would have in the permitting process.  Senator Snelling said there was nothing in the bill that would allow a neighboring town to kill a project.

But others suspected the bill would give towns a veto power.  Senator McCormack was among the senators who argued that local control should not override the public good.

“It’s a question of state sovereignty,” he said, pointing out that local control is a power granted to towns by the state.

While Senator Snelling argued that the bill was “a workable proposal to get the best siting for energy,” others argued there was no need for it.

Senator Jeanette White of Windham argued that the bill was redundant and unnecessary.  She noted there were no projects waiting in the wings, and said she was uncomfortable with the bill because she believed it discriminated against wind.

Senator Benning became an advocate for changing the permitting process after he climbed Lowell Mountain and viewed how construction had transformed the mountaintop in preparation for the placement of 21 turbines.  When he came off the mountain, he decided, “We had a problem that wasn’t being addressed by our government.”

As part of his presentation Tuesday, he passed out a parcel of photographs that documented the destruction on Lowell Mountain.  And proceeded to argue that wind developers had gone to the Northeast Kingdom because of its rural isolation and lack of population.

He compared Newark’s town plan with a set of ordinances drawn up by the city of Burlington and pointed out their striking similarities.  Each, he said, wanted to preserve their landscape, natural beauty, and views.

Burlington and the surrounding communities within a ten-mile radius account for one-third of the state’s population.  But Newark, he said, had a population of 581.

Small towns like Newark, he implied, need protection because wind developers go where they won’t get a push back.  Or where resistance is least and likely less affordable.

Senator Mark MacDonald of Orange County said the Kingdom was like the leopard that wanted to change its spots.  He said among supporters of the bill were people from the Northeast Kingdom who had brought “cell towers to mountaintops, and Act 250 be damned.”

No great harm would come, he promised, if the bill were defeated.

Each side in the debate claimed to champion action to slow global warming.  Senator Richard Westman of Lamoille called it “the most important issue facing us.”

He supported the bill because he said it was making lawmakers struggle with the consequences of what has already been done.  And although he was not real happy with the bill, he called the debate surrounding it vital.

For Senator McCormack, the choice hinged on global warming.  The planet was in danger, he said, and push had come to shove.

“The very idea I would vote against a bill to regulate a troubling development — something I never thought I would do,” he said.

“I’m going to vote against this bill and break my heart.”

A final vote by the Senate could come as early as Thursday morning.

contact Paul Lefebvre at [email protected]

For more free articles from the Chronicle like this one, see our Editor’s Picks pages. For all the Chronicle’s stories, pick up a print copy or subscribe, either for print or digital editions.

Share

S.30 – an act relating to siting of electric generation plants

This wording is as of 2-28-2013.

– 131 –
NOTICE CALENDAR
Second Reading
Favorable with Recommendation of Amendment
S. 30.
An act relating to siting of electric generation plants.
Reported favorably with recommendation of amendment by Senator
Snelling for the Committee on Natural Resources and Energy.
The Committee recommends that the bill be amended by striking out all
after the enacting clause and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
* * * Findings * * *
Sec. 1. FINDINGS
The General Assembly finds that:
(1) Climate change from the emission of greenhouse gases such as
carbon dioxide (CO
2
) is one of the most serious issues facing Vermont today.
In this State, the change in climate already has resulted in significant damage
from increased heavy rain events and flooding and in fundamental alterations
to average annual temperatures and the length and characteristics of the
seasons. As climate change accelerates, the hazards to human health and
safety and the environment in Vermont will rise, including an increased
frequency of violent storm events, heat waves, and one- to two-month
droughts; threats to the productivity of cold-weather crops and dairy cows and
to cold-water fish and wildlife species; reduced seasons for skiing,
snowmobiling, and sugaring; and increasing risks to infrastructure such as
roads and bridges near streams and rivers.
(2) Vermont currently encourages the in-state siting of renewable
electric generation projects in order to contribute to reductions in global
climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions. Yet significant
controversy exists over whether in-state development of renewable energy
actually reduces Vermont’s greenhouse gas emissions, since these projects
typically sell renewable energy credits to utilities in other states, and those
credits are netted against the greenhouse gas emissions of those states.
(3) Vermont’s electric energy consumption does not contribute
significantly to the State’s carbon footprint. In 2010, CO
2
and equivalent
emissions from Vermont energy consumption totaled approximately eight
million metric tons (MMTCO
2
). Of this total, transportation fuel use
accounted for approximately 3.5, nonelectric fuel use by homes and businesses
for approximately 2.5 and, in contrast, electric energy use for approximately
0.04 MMTCO
2
.
– 132 –
(4) The in-state siting of renewable electric generation projects carries
the potential for significant adverse impacts. For example, in Vermont,
developers site industrial wind generation projects and wind meteorological
stations on ridgelines, which often contain sensitive habitat and important
natural areas. Vermont’s ridgelines also define and enhance the State’s natural
and scenic beauty. Vermont has invested substantial time and effort to develop
regulatory policy and programs to protect its ridgelines.
(5) Ridgeline wind generation plants have potential impacts on natural
resources, scenic beauty, and quality of life, including effects on endangered
and threatened species, wildlife habitat, and aesthetics and impacts from
blasting and turbine noise. Residents near installed wind generation plants
have raised concerns about health impacts, including sleep loss. Significant
controversy has arisen over whether the Public Service Board review process
adequately protects the public and the environment from the negative impacts
caused by these and other electric generation projects.
(6) Vermont has a long history of supporting community-based land use
planning. Under 24 V.S.A. chapter 117, Vermont’s 11 regional planning
commissions and its municipal planning commissions are enabled and
encouraged to adopt plans to guide development, including energy and utility
facilities. These plans are adopted through a public hearing and comment
process after substantial effort by the regions and the municipalities, often with
extensive involvement of citizens in the affected communities. Yet under
current law, the Public Service Board when reviewing an electric generation
project may set aside the results of this planning process for any reason the
Board considers to affect the general good of the State, even if the project is
not needed for reliability of the electric system.
(7) No statewide analysis and planning is performed to address the
environmental, land use, and health impacts of siting wind generation projects
in Vermont. Instead, the Public Service Board examines the impacts on a
case-by-case basis only.
(8) The current case-by-case system of regulating electric generation
projects must be revised to ensure the best possible siting of these projects. To
achieve this goal, the siting of electric generation projects must be directed by
community-based land use planning. Each electric generation project must
comply with the same environmental and land use criteria as other
development projects unless the generation project is for the purpose of system
reliability. A statewide assessment must be made and a process must be
developed that integrates and strengthens the role of community-based land
use planning and supports effective review and optimal siting of all electric
generation projects. This assessment also must evaluate whether encouraging
– 133 –
in-state siting of renewable electric generation is the most appropriate means at
Vermont’s disposal to reduce its carbon footprint.
* * * Assessment; Report * * *
Sec. 2. ELECTRIC GENERATION SITING; ASSESSMENT; REPORT
(a) Charge. On or before November 15, 2013, the Department of Public
Service, in consultation with and assisted by the Agencies of Commerce and
Community Development and of Natural Resources, the Natural Resources
Board, and the state’s regional planning commissions, shall conduct and
complete the assessment and submit the report to the General Assembly
required by this section.
(b) Definitions. In this section:
(1) “ACCD” means the Agency of Commerce and Community
Development.
(2) “ANR” means the Agency of Natural Resources.
(3) “Board” means the Natural Resources Board.
(4) “Department” means the Department of Public Service.
(5) “Electric generation plant” means a plant that produces electricity
and has a plant capacity that exceeds 500 kilowatts.
(6) “Plant” and “plant capacity” shall have the same meaning as in
30 V.S.A. § 8002, except that they shall not be limited to renewable energy.
(7) “Regional planning commission” shall have the meaning as in
24 V.S.A. § 4303.
(8) “Wind generation plant” means an electric generation plant that
captures the energy of the wind and converts it into electricity. The term
includes all associated facilities and infrastructure such as wind turbines,
towers, guy wires, power lines, roads, and substations.
(9) “Wind meteorological station” means any tower, and associated guy
wires and attached instrumentation, constructed to collect and record wind
speed, wind direction, and atmospheric conditions.
(c) Governor’s Siting Policy Commission. In performing its tasks under
this section, the Department shall use the information and data collected by the
Governor’s Energy Siting Policy Commission (the Siting Policy Commission)
created by Executive Order No. 10-12 dated October 2, 2012 (the Executive
Order) and shall consider the recommendations of that Commission.
(d) Assessment. The Department, assisted by ACCD, ANR, the Board, and
the regional planning commissions, shall assess each of the following:
– 134 –
(1) the appropriateness and economic efficiency of investing or
encouraging investment in renewable electric generation plants to reduce
Vermont’s greenhouse gas emissions in comparison to other measures to
reduce those emissions such as transportation fuel efficiency and thermal
energy efficiency;
(2) the current policy and practice of selling renewable energy credits
from renewable electric generation plants in Vermont to utilities in other
jurisdictions and the effect of this policy and practice on reducing Vermont’s
greenhouse gas emissions;
(3) methods to integrate state energy planning and local and regional
land use planning as they apply to electric generation plants;
(4) methods to strengthen the role of local and regional plans in the
siting review process for electric generation plants and to assure that the siting
review process reflects the outcome of the local and regional planning
processes;
(5) methods to fund intervenors in the siting review process for electric
generation projects; and
(6) with respect to wind generation plants and wind meteorological
stations:
(A) health impacts of plants and stations located in and outside
Vermont;
(B) sound and infrasound emitted from plants and stations located in
and outside Vermont as they affect public health and quality of life;
(C) setback requirements on such plants and stations adopted by
other jurisdictions in and outside the United States;
(D) the impacts on the environment, natural resources, and quality of
life of the plants and stations in Vermont in existence or under construction as
of the effective date of this section; and
(E) the economic and environmental costs and benefits of such plants
and stations, including the value of any ecosystem services affected by them.
(e) Report; proposed legislation. On or before November 15, 2013, the
Department, assisted by ACCD, ANR, the Board, and the regional planning
commissions, shall submit a report to the House and Senate Committees on
Natural Resources and Energy and the Electric Generation Oversight
Committee created under subsection (g) of this section that contains each of
the following:
(1) The results of each assessment to be conducted under subsection (d)
of this section.
– 135 –
(2) Recommendations and proposed legislation to:
(A) establish a comprehensive planning process for the siting of
electric generation plants that integrates state energy and local and regional
land use planning;
(B) ensure that the outcome of this integrated planning process
directs the siting review process for electric generation plants and that local
and regional land use plans have a determinative role in this siting review
process;
(C) establish a method to fund intervenors participating in the siting
review process for electric generation plants;
(D) maximize the reductions in Vermont’s greenhouse gas emissions
supported by revenues raised from Vermont taxpayers and ratepayers;
(E) establish standards applicable to all wind generation plants and
wind meteorological stations to address their impacts on the public health,
environment, land use, and quality of life, including standards to protect
natural areas and wildlife habitat and to establish noise limits and setback
requirements applicable to such plants and stations; and
(F) establish a procedure to measure a property owner’s loss of value,
if any, due to proximity to a wind generation plant and to propose a method to
compensate the property owner for the loss in value, including a determination
of who shall pay for such loss.
(f) Public notice and participation.
(1) The Department shall give widespread public notice of the
assessment and report required by this section and shall maintain on its website
a prominent page concerning this process that provides notice of all public
meetings held and posts relevant information and documents.
(2) In performing the assessment and developing the report required by
this section, the Department shall provide an opportunity for local legislative
bodies, local planning commissions, affected businesses and organizations, and
members of the public to submit relevant factual information, analysis, and
comment. This opportunity shall include meetings conducted by the DPS at
locations that are geographically distributed around the State to receive such
information, analysis, and comment.
(g) Oversight committee. There is created the Electric Generation
Oversight Committee (the Committee). The purpose of the Committee shall be
to perform legislative oversight of the conduct of the assessment and report
required by this section and to discuss potential legislation on planning for and
siting of electric generation plants.
– 136 –
(1) Membership. The Committee shall be composed of six members
who shall be appointed within 30 days of this section’s effective date. Three of
the members shall be members of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources
and Energy appointed by the Committee on Committees of the Senate. Three
of the members shall be members of the House Committee on Natural
Resources and Energy appointed by the Speaker of the House.
(2) Meetings. During adjournment of the General Assembly, the
Committee shall be authorized to conduct up to three meetings. at which
meetings the Committee may:
(A) direct the Department, ACCD, ANR, the Board, and one or more
regional planning commissions to appear and provide progress reports on the
assessment and report required by this section and discuss proposals of draft
legislation on planning for and siting of electric generation plants; and
(B) direct members of the Siting Policy Commission to appear and
provide information and testimony related to the Commission’s report and
recommendations issued pursuant to the Executive Order and to the siting of
electric generation plants in Vermont. This authority shall continue for the
duration of the Committee’s term whether or not the Siting Policy Commission
ceases to exist prior to the end of the Committee’s term.
(3) Reimbursement. For attendance at authorized meetings during
adjournment of the General Assembly, members of the Committee shall be
entitled to compensation and reimbursement for expenses as provided in 2
V.S.A. § 406.
(4) For the purpose of its tasks under this subsection, the Committee
shall have the administrative and legal assistance of the Office of Legislative
Council.
(5) Term of committee. The Committee shall cease to exist on February
1, 2014.
Sec. 3. APPROPRIATION
For fiscal year 2014, the sum of $75,000.00 is appropriated to the
Department of Public Service from the General Fund for the purpose of Sec. 2
of this act (electric generation siting; assessment; report).
* * * Regional Planning for Electric Generation Plants * * *
Sec. 4. 24 V.S.A. § 4348a is amended to read:
§ 4348a. ELEMENTS OF A REGIONAL PLAN
(a) A regional plan shall be consistent with the goals established in section
4302 of this title and shall include but need not be limited to the following:
– 137 –
* * *
(3) An energy element, which:
(A) may include an analysis of energy resources, needs, scarcities,
costs, and problems within the region, a statement of policy on the
conservation of energy and the development of renewable energy resources,
and a statement of policy on patterns and densities of land use and control
devices likely to result in conservation of energy; and
(B) shall include the electric energy siting plan under section 4348c
of this title;
* * *
Sec. 5. 24 V.S.A. § 4348c is added to read:
§ 4348c. ELECTRIC ENERGY SITING PLAN
(a) In this section:
(1) “Electric generation plant” means a plant that produces electricity
and has a plant capacity that exceeds 500 kilowatts.
(2) “Plant” and “plant capacity” shall have the same meaning as in
30 V.S.A. § 8002, except that they shall not be limited to renewable energy.
(b) Each regional planning commission shall adopt a plan concerning the
siting of electric generation plants within the region. This plan shall be
adopted as part of or an amendment to the regional plan.
(c) The plan shall state the region’s specific policies on the siting of electric
generation plants and identify the appropriate locations within the region, if
any, for the siting of electric generation plants.
(d) In developing the siting plan, the regional planning commission shall
apply the resource maps developed by the Secretary of Natural Resources
under 10 V.S.A. § 127, protect the resources under 10 V.S.A. § 6086(a), and
consider the energy policy set forth in 30 V.S.A. §§ 202a and 8001 and the
state energy plans adopted under 30 V.S.A. §§ 202 and 202b.
(e) Notwithstanding section 4350 of this title, the plan for a municipality
shall not be considered incompatible with the regional plan for the reason that
the municipal plan prohibits the siting of an electric generation plant that the
regional plan would allow within the municipality.
Sec. 6. IMPLEMENTATION
On or before December 15, 2014, each regional planning commission shall
adopt a renewable electric energy siting plan under Sec. 5 of this act, 24 V.S.A.
§ 4348c.
– 138 –
* * * Municipal Officers; Ethics Disclosure * * *
Sec. 7. 24 V.S.A. § 873 is added to read:
§ 873. DISCLOSURE; FINANCIAL INTEREST; WIND GENERATION
PLANTS
A member of a municipality’s legislative body or other municipal officer
shall not participate in any meeting or proceeding or take any official action
concerning a wind generation plant proposed to be located within the
municipality the member or officer may have in the construction or operation
of the plant, including the retention of the member or officer by the plant
developer an agreement under which the plant developer will compensate the
member or officer for potential impacts to land of the member or officer.
(1) In this section, a financial interest of a member or officer shall
include a financial interest in the construction or operation of the plant of any
natural person to which the member or officer is related within the fourth
degree of consanguinity or affinity or of any corporation of which an officer,
director, trustee, or agent is related to the member or officer within such
degree.
(2) This section shall not require disclosure of a financial interest shared
generally by the residents of the municipality such as the municipality’s receipt
of property taxes or other payments from the plant.
Sec. 8. 24 V.S.A. § 4461 is amended to read:
§ 4461. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES
(a) Meetings; rules of procedure and ethics. An appropriate municipal
panel shall elect its own officers and adopt rules of procedure, subject to this
section and other applicable state statutes, and shall adopt rules of ethics with
respect to conflicts of interest.
(1) Meetings of any appropriate municipal panel shall be held at the call
of the chairperson and at such times as the panel may determine. The officers
of the panel may administer oaths and compel the attendance of witnesses and
the production of material germane to any issue under review. All meetings of
the panel, except for deliberative and executive sessions, shall be open to the
public. The panel shall keep minutes of its proceedings, showing the vote of
each member upon each question, or, if absent or failing to vote, indicating
this, and shall keep records of its examinations and other official actions, all of
which shall be filed immediately in the office of the clerk of the municipality
as a public record. For the conduct of any hearing and the taking of any action,
a quorum shall be not less than a majority of the members of the panel, and any
action of the panel shall be taken by the concurrence of a majority of the panel.
– 139 –
(2) The provisions of section 873 of this title (disclosure; financial
interest; wind generation plant) shall apply to each member of an appropriate
municipal panel.
* * *
* * * Electric Generation Siting Jurisdiction; Public Service Board * * *
Sec. 9. 30 V.S.A. § 248 is amended to read:
§ 248. NEW GAS AND ELECTRIC PURCHASES, INVESTMENTS, AND
FACILITIES; CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC GOOD
(a)(1) No company, as defined in section 201 of this title, may:
(A) In any way purchase electric capacity or energy from outside
the state State:
(i) for a period exceeding five years, that represents more than
three percent of its historic peak demand, unless the purchase is from a plant as
defined in subdivision 8002(14) of this title that produces electricity from
renewable energy as defined under subdivision 8002(17); or
(ii) for a period exceeding ten years, that represents more than ten
percent of its historic peak demand, if the purchase is from a plant as defined
in subdivision 8002(14) of this title that produces electricity from renewable
energy as defined under subdivision 8002(17); or
(B) invest in an electric generation or transmission facility located
outside this state State unless the public service board Public Service Board
first finds that the same will promote the general good of the state State and
issues a certificate to that effect.
(2) Except for the replacement of existing facilities with equivalent
facilities in the usual course of business, and except for electric generation
facilities that are operated solely for on-site electricity consumption by the
owner of those facilities:
(A) no company, as defined in section 201 of this title, and no person,
as defined in 10 V.S.A. § 6001(14), may begin site preparation for or
construction of an electric generation facility or electric transmission facility
within the state State which is designed for immediate or eventual operation at
any voltage; and
(B) no such company may exercise the right of eminent domain in
connection with site preparation for or construction of any such transmission or
generation facility, unless the public service board Public Service Board first
finds that the same will promote the general good of the state State and issues a
certificate to that effect.
– 140 –
* * *
(b) Before the public service board Public Service Board issues a certificate
of public good as required under subsection (a) of this section, it shall find that
the purchase, investment, or construction:
(1)(A) with respect to an in-state electric generation facility exceeding
500 kilowatts, will be in conformance with the duly adopted plans under 24
V.S.A. chapter 117 for the municipality and region in which the facility is
located, and due consideration has been given to the land conservation
measures contained in the plan of any other affected municipality.
Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section, the Board shall not issue a
certificate under this section for such an in-state facility without finding that
this subdivision (1)(A) is met. However, this subdivision (1)(A) shall not
apply to an electric generation facility the principal effect of which, if
approved, would be to remediate a constraint in the electric transmission or
distribution system;
(B) with respect to an any other in-state facility subject to this
section, will not unduly interfere with the orderly development of the region
with due consideration having been given to the recommendations of the
municipal and regional planning commissions, the recommendations of the
municipal legislative bodies, and the land conservation measures contained in
the plan of any affected municipality. However, with respect to a natural gas
transmission line subject to board review, the line shall be in conformance with
any applicable provisions concerning such lines contained in the duly adopted
regional plan; and, in addition, upon application of any party, the board Board
shall condition any certificate of public good for a natural gas transmission line
issued under this section so as to prohibit service connections that would not be
in conformance with the adopted municipal plan in any municipality in which
the line is located;
* * *
(5) with respect to an in-state facility, will not have an undue adverse
effect on esthetics, historic sites, air and water purity, the natural environment,
the use of natural resources, and the public health and safety, with and:
(A) with respect to an in-state electric generation facility exceeding
500 kilowatts, will comply with the criteria of 10 V.S.A. § 6086(a)(1)–(9)(L).
Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section, the Board shall not issue a
certificate under this section for such an in-state facility without finding that
this subdivision (5)(A) is met. However, this subdivision (5)(A) shall not
apply to an electric generation facility the principal effect of which, if
approved, would be to remediate a constraint in the electric transmission or
distribution system;
– 141 –
(B) with respect to any other in-state facility subject to this section,
due consideration having has been given to the criteria specified in 10 V.S.A.
§§ 1424a(d) and 6086(a)(1) through (8) and (9)(K) and greenhouse gas
impacts.
* * *
(q) When reviewing a facility under this section pursuant to the criteria of
10 V.S.A. § 6086(a), the Public Service Board shall consider the relevant
precedents of the former Environmental Board and of the Environmental
Division of the Superior Court and shall apply the relevant precedents of the
Vermont Supreme Court.
Sec. 10. RETROACTIVE APPLICATION
Notwithstanding 1 V.S.A. §§ 213 and 214, Sec. 9 (new gas and electric
purchases, investments, and facilities; certificate of public good) of this act
shall apply to applications that are filed on and after March 1, 2013 and are
pending as of this section’s effective date.
* * * State Lands * * *
Sec. 11. 10 V.S.A. chapter 88 is added to read:
CHAPTER 88. PROHIBITION; COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION;
CERTAIN PUBLIC LANDS
§ 2801. POLICY
Vermont’s state parks, state forests, natural areas, wilderness areas, wildlife
management areas, and wildlife refuges are intended to remain in a natural or
wild state forever and shall be protected and managed accordingly.
§ 2802. PROHIBITION
(a) Construction for any commercial purpose, including the generation of
electric power, shall not be permitted within any state park or forest,
wilderness area designated by law, or natural area designated under section
2607 of this title.
(b) This section shall not prohibit:
(1) the construction of a concession or other structure for the use of
visitors to state parks or forests;
(2) a modification or improvement to a dam in existence as of the
effective date of this section, if the modification or improvement is:
(A) to ensure public safety; or
– 142 –
(B) to allow the dam’s use for the generation of electricity, and the
construction of any power lines and facilities necessary for such use;
(3) the construction of telecommunications facilities, as defined in
30 V.S.A. § 248a(b) (certificate of public good; communications facilities), in
accordance with all other applicable state law;
(4) a temporary structure or road for forestry purposes as may be
permitted on a state land;
(5) tapping of maple trees and associated activities on state forestland
authorized under a license pursuant to section 2606b of this title; or
(6) construction on state land that is permitted under a lease or license
that was in existence on this act’s effective date and, in the case of a ski area,
the renewal of such a lease or license or its modification to allow expansion of
the ski area.
Sec. 12. REPEAL
10 V.S.A. § 2606(c) (state forests; parks; leases for mining or quarrying) is
repealed.

Share

Reporter seeks damages for arrest on Lowell Mountain

by Paul Lefebvre

copyright the Chronicle 1-9-2013

The legal fight between Green Mountain Power (GMP)  and Chronicle publisher and reporter Chris Braithwaite has shifted from criminal to civil court.

Defense attorney Phil White filed a civil complaint late last month alleging that GMP had violated his client’s civil rights when Mr. Braithwaite was arrested on December 5, 2011, for covering a wind protest on Lowell Mountain.

Mr. White charges that GMP and its agent on the site, David Coriell, “knew or should have known that Braithwaite had permission to be on the property and that, at the very least, misinformation provided by Coriell and GMP to law enforcement had caused Braithwaite to be wrongly taken into custody, arrested, and subsequently charged with and prosecuted for unlawful trespass.”

The civil complaint comes close on the heels of a ruling handed down by Judge Howard VanBenthuysen that dismissed a criminal charge of unlawful trespass brought against Mr. Braithwaite and forbids the state to bring the charges back at a later date.

In dismissing the case with prejudice, Judge VanBenthuysen noted that he failed to see how the state could bring back the charge against the journalist in light of the e-mails among GMP officials giving the press permission to be at the site.

After noting the e-mails only came into view as the case was about to go to trial, the judge wrote:  “Consent is a key element of the offense, and GMP apparently consented to the presence of media at protests, and gave instructions that the media should not be arrested.”

In her brief to the court, Deputy State’s Attorney Sarah Baker argued against dismissing the charge with prejudice, saying the state could still make a case against Mr. Braithwaite by bringing Mr. Coriell, who has since left Vermont, back to testify.

The judge concluded, however, that was stretching the point, as it was unlikely that Mr. Coriell could give testimony that would rebut the evidence found in the e-mails.

“Under the circumstances this is the rare case in which a dismissal with prejudice is appropriate, given the late revelation of consent.”

The ruling was released on December 24 and the day after Christmas, December 26, Mr. White filed a civil complaint against GMP.  Along with the complaint, Mr. White also asked the court to revise a protective order to return to GMP documents that were sealed when the criminal case was still active.

Mr. White argued in his brief that he wanted to retain the documents on the grounds they constitute evidence in the civil suit he is pursuing against GMP.  If the court grants his request, the documents would be kept from public view until further court order.

The civil suit filed by Mr. White seeks damages on four counts:  false arrest; false and malicious prosecution; fraud, slander and false report; and fraudulent concealment.

The suit asks for compensatory damages in the amount of $22,530 (Mr. White’s fee for Mr. Braithwaite’s criminal defense) along with attorney’s fees and expenses in the civil case.  The suit further alleges that Mr. Braithwaite’s civil rights were violated, and seeks punitive damages, which are characteristically sought as a deterrent.

In his discussion of the events leading up to his client’s arrest, Mr. White says that GMP anticipated Mr. Braithwaite’s arrival at the protest and spelled out a course of action for its agent at Lowell Mountain.

GMP officials, according to the complaint, “gave Coriell explicit directions to inform law enforcement that Chris Braithwaite and any other members of the working press who showed up to cover this protest had GMP’s consent to be there to cover this event and that they were not to be arrested.”

As it turned out, Mr. Braithwaite was the only reporter present at the site, and was arrested when he refused a police order to leave.  Mr. White argues that after his client was arrested, GMP failed to step forward to explain their instructions to Mr. Coriell and reverse the arrest.

Their failure to do so, the attorney further argues, violated Mr. Braithwaite’s civil rights.  The attorney said that Mr. Braithwaite, as a journalist, had written “fierce editorials opposing GMP’s commercial wind project” on Lowell Mountain.

“At all times material to this complaint GMP and its agents, including Coriell and Orleans County law enforcement officers have jointly participated in the planning and execution of arrests of protesters,” charges the complaint.

“GMP and/or Coriell were acting under the color of law and engaging in ‘state action’ when they maliciously gave the government false and misleading information with the purpose of causing the government to engage in false arrest and wrongful prosecution.”

Green Mountain Power did not respond Tuesday to a request for comment.  Nor has the company filed a response in court to the complaint.  When the possibility of a civil law suit was raised last month, a company spokesman told a reporter that any legal claim against Mr. Coriell would be frivolous.

contact Paul Lefebvre at [email protected]

For more free articles from the Chronicle like this one, see our Editor’s Picks pages. For all the Chronicle’s stories, pick up a print copy or subscribe, either for print or digital editions.

To read court documents connected to this case, please click on the links here:  No1-citation

No2-recordcheck

No3-information

No4-Sheriff’s affidavit

No5-Coriell’s affidavit

No6-Brooks affidavit

No7-Motion to Dismiss

No8-state’s response to No7

No9-Defense Memo in support of No7

No10-renewed motion to dismiss

No11-motion to dismiss with prejudice

No12-state’s opposition to No11

No13-judge’s ruling on No11

No14-civil complaint

Share

Publisher’s trespassing case dismissed

Featured

The Lowell Mountain wind towers as seen from Irish Hill. Photo by Bethany M. Dunbar

by Paul Lefebvre

copyright the Chronicle 12-12-2012

NEWPORT — A utility wind developer company that tried to do the right thing by the press appears to have shot itself in the foot when it allowed the arrest of a reporter and then failed to step forward and rectify an action contrary to company policy.

The Orleans County state’s attorney’s office last week dismissed a criminal charge of unlawful trespass brought against Chris Braithwaite, a reporter for and publisher of the Chronicle in Barton.

Mr. Braithwaite, who had been spearheading his paper’s coverage of the wind project on Lowell Mountain and the controversy it triggered, went to the site on December 5, 2011, to cover a demonstration that protesters had scheduled for the morning.

Police intervened and arrested six protesters, who became known as the Lowell Six.  A jury found each of them guilty of unlawful trespass this summer.  Mr. Braithwaite also was arrested despite his claims he only had gone to the site to cover the demonstration as a reporter.

When news of his case’s dismissal was announced last week, Mr. Braithwaite, 68, of West Glover, released the following statement:

“On the day after my arraignment on a charge of unlawful trespass, I wrote that I believed my conduct on Lowell Mountain on December 5, 2011, satisfied the dictates of common sense and the ethics of journalism.  What remained was the daunting task of demonstrating that it was also within the law.  That task came to a successful conclusion today.”

Dismissal came as the case was preparing to go to trial and after defense attorney Phil White subpoenaed internal e-mails that passed back and forth among officials of Green Mountain Power Company (GMP.)

The documents show that GMP intended to give Mr. Braithwaite and other reporters access to its Lowell Mountain site, where protesters were demonstrating against the construction of a 21-turbine wind project.

“Does anyone know what happened,” asked Robert Dostis, a GMP official who works with communities and who was responding to colleagues about an editorial against the arrest.

To GMP’s site manager at Lowell Mountain, he went on express surprise that an arrest had occurred.

“Frankly, I don’t understand why Chris was arrested since you gave exact instructions that he not be,” he wrote in an e-mail dated December 10.

A day later, a second official struck a similar note.

“I think now we have to put an end to the notion we tried to stop the media, when we simply did not,” wrote a GMP consultant Stephen Terry in an internal e-mail sent six days after the arrest.

He then repeated a question asked earlier by the company’s public relations officer:  “Did the leadership instruction not to arrest CB just not get relayed fast enough Monday morning?”

While release of the e-mails helped to end the criminal charge, they may have opened a new chapter in the case.

Attorney White said Monday he had asked for an apology from GMP as well as compensation for expenses and legal fees that came to $22,330.

“Had Green Mountain Power disclosed this information to the State Attorney’s Office promptly, Chris never would have had to undergo a year facing criminal charges,” wrote Mr. White in an e-mail.

“Instead, GMP sat on its hands and did nothing, absolutely nothing.”

Mr. White said he hoped that GMP would “do the right thing” by apologizing and paying Mr. Braithwaite.

But that appeared unlikely Tuesday.

GMP Public Relations Officer Dorothy Schnure said that it was Mr. Braithwaite’s refusal to leave the site that caused him to be arrested.  And once an arrest occurred, it was out of GMP’s hands.

“It’s not our case, it’s the state’s,” she said, adding later:  “While we had hoped he wouldn’t be arrested, that’s what played out.”

She declined to comment Tuesday if the company had received Mr. White’s request of GMP to pay for his client’s legal fees and expenses.

In an e-mail later in the day Ms. Schnure stated:

“Frankly, the proposition that David Coriell acted inappropriately and that it gives grounds for a legal claim by Chris Braithwaite is frankly frivolous.”

On Monday Judge Howard VanBenthuysen, who presided over the case, released some of the documents, which had been sealed under an agreement between the defense and prosecution.

The judge noted they had been submitted in support of the defense motion to dismiss with prejudice and were now part of the public record.

He also said he would not rule on the motion to dismiss the case with prejudice until the state had a chance to respond.  If a case is dismissed without prejudice, the state can bring it again.  He set a deadline of December 26 for the prosecution to respond.

Deputy State’s Attorney Sarah Baker said in an interview Tuesday she would file a response opposing the motion because there is still evidence available that would enable the state to win the case.

She said her motion would also explain why the state dismissed the charge, adding that her office did not want to inconvenience a witness and former employee of GMP who has since moved from Vermont.  Ms. Baker also said there were documents in the file that had not been unsealed and that would help the state prove its case, in the event it was brought back.

The documents that came to light this week indicated that the state’s dismissal may have hinged on the failure of a GMP employee at the scene on the day of the arrest to correctly inform police officers of the company’s policy toward arresting Mr. Braithwaite and any other journalists covering the protest.

As GMP officials scrambled to learn what had happened, David Coriell, its representative at the site during the protest, tried to explain to his bosses in two e-mails why the arrest had occurred.

The first e-mail sent on the day of the arrest stated: “Braithwaite and another woman stopped at the edge of the construction site and started taking pictures.  Phil Brooks, the Orleans Co. Chief Deputy, asked Braithwaite and the woman to get back another 50 feet to the Nelson property.  The woman complied.  Braithwaite chose to stay.  Brooks approached Braithwaite and after a short conversation he asked him to leave or come back and stand with those willing to be arrested.  Braithwaite walked back and stood with those being arrested.”

In the second e-mail, dated December 11, Mr. Coriell told his bosses that the no-arrest instructions “didn’t get relayed to all the officers involved.

“That said, I know the Sheriff had no intention of arresting Chris.  Chris actually arrested himself by physically walking back to the middle of the crane path.”

He went on to say that Mr. Braithwaite called the officer an expletive.  The officer charged that the reporter had stepped “over a professional line.”

Ms. Schnure said Tuesday the scene that day at the site was confusing, with cell phones losing signal and people milling around.  She called the arrest Tuesday “a breakdown in communications.”

Concerned that another protest at the mountain was coming, GMP officials huddled and considered what they should do about access and the press, and what instructions to give the police.  An e-mail from Ms. Schnure to GMP managers on December 11 laid out a possible course of action.

“Dave confirm that sheriff will be there early if at all possible.  Ensure sheriff knows media has permission to be there.  Tell Sheriff we really don’t want any reporters arrested.”

Mr. Terry, the consultant, agreed, calling the proposed instructions “a good way to pre-empt another journalism arrest which was never our intent or purpose here.”

While it is still unclear how far the documents went in convincing the state to dismiss the charge, they did provide a picture of GMP managers working to ensure similar arrests of reporters would not occur at future demonstrations.

“We have to minimize the public and political fallout of decisions made on the mountain,” wrote Mr. Dostis in a December 10 e-mail.

“Arresting reporters will do more harm than good.”

Ms. Schnure said repeatedly Tuesday that it was Mr. Braithwaite’s actions that caused his arrest.  And that he was not owed an apology by GMP.

contact Paul Lefebvre at [email protected]

For more free articles from the Chronicle like this one, see our Editor’s Picks pages. For all the Chronicle’s stories, pick up a print copy or subscribe, either for print or digital editions.

 

Share

Lowell wind project nears completion amid noise complaints

Featured

The Lowell Mountain wind towers as seen from Irish Hill. Photo by Bethany M. Dunbar

by Chris Braithwaite

copyright the Chronicle 11-28-2012

LOWELL — All 21 turbines of the Kingdom Community Wind project have generated power, a spokesman for Green Mountain Power said Tuesday.  And with the project making power, it has beaten the December 31 deadline to qualify for federal production tax credits that should total between $40-million and $48-million over the next ten years, said the spokesman, Dorothy Schnure.

She emphasized that “every penny” of the tax credits “goes to lower the cost of power for our customers.”

Ms. Schnure stopped short of saying the project is complete.  “We still have some fine tuning work to do on them,” she said of the turbines.

Meanwhile complaints about noise continue to be heard from the project’s neighbors.  And the distances the turbines’ sound can travel continues to surprise people.

Mary Davis, who lives about four miles east in Albany, across the valley of the Black River and a little east of Page Pond, said she heard them early Monday morning.

“I was taking the old dog out for a three o’clock stroll,” Ms. Davis said.  “She’s almost 15, and when she’s got to go, she’s got to go.”

Ms. Davis found the sound novel, but hard to describe.  “It was just something different,” she said.

“It must be awful” for the project’s close neighbors, Ms. Davis commented, “if you can hear it this far back.”

On the other side of Lowell Mountain, on the Farm Road, one such neighbor arrived home from his overseas job late last week.

“At approximately 3 on the morning of November 25 I along with four of my house guests were woken by thumping noise that lasted for over two hours coming from the wind turbines behind my home,” Kevin McGrath wrote in an e-mail to Susan Paruch, a consumer affairs specialist at the state Department of Public Service.

“The noise was similar to a heavy object rotating in a clothes dryer,” Mr. McGrath wrote.  “Later on that morning at about 10 the noise levels penetrated my home and sounded like a waterfall gushing directly behind my home.”

Mr. McGrath lives in one of about 50 structures that sit inside a “1.5 mile buffer” drawn around the project by RSG, Inc., the White River Junction firm that drafted the final sound monitoring protocol for Green Mountain Power.  His home is also one of about 19 structures within a smaller zone where, RSG estimates, turbine sound will reach between 40 and 45 decibels outside the home.

In granting the project a certificate of public good, the state Public Service Board set sound limits at 45 decibels outside neighboring homes, and 30 decibels in their bedrooms.

The extended family of Don and Shirley Nelson celebrated Thanksgiving in their farmhouse, which also sits well inside the 40-to-45-decibel zone.

Among the 19 people present, Mr. Nelson said Monday, two suffered migraine headaches, and some thought their ears were going to pop.  “Some of their stomachs didn’t feel right,” Mr. Nelson said, “and I don’t think it was Shirley’s cooking.”

“Shirley can hear it in the house,” he said of the turbine sound.  “Her ears are ringing all the time now.  They never did before.  If we go away two or three hours, it stops.”

Mr. Nelson, who was one of the migraine sufferers, said it’s impossible to know what causes such a headache.  He added that he expects complaints from his household to be discounted by Green Mountain Power and state officials, because the couple has fought to stop the project since it was proposed.

At Green Mountain Power, Ms. Schnure said the utility has received two more noise complaints since a particularly noisy weekend surprised many Albany residents in early November.  Both of the recent complaints came from hunters, she said.

“If people have concerns about undue noise they should talk to us,” Ms. Schnure said.

The Public Service Board imposed strict noise limits on the project, she said, “and we will meet those standards.”

contact Chris Braithwaite at [email protected]

For more free articles from the Chronicle like this one, see our Editor’s Picks pages. For all the Chronicle’s stories, pick up a print copy or subscribe, either for print or digital editions.

Share

Brighton selectmen poll voters and taxpayers on industrial wind

Wind towers on Lowell Mountain, as seen from Irish Hill Road. Photo by Bethany M. Dunbar

by Richard Creaser

copyright the Chronicle 11-21-2012

ISLAND POND — Within the next few days every registered voter and property taxpayer in the town of Brighton can expect to receive a ballot in the mail.  That ballot asks the recipient whether or not they favor, oppose or remain undecided on the issue of industrial wind projects on ridgelines within the town.  Though the results of the balloting are non-binding, the town’s selectmen agreed that they would support the majority decision expressed by respondents.

The ballots were mailed on Tuesday and must be postmarked no later than December 7 to be included in the voting.  The selectmen agreed to wait a few extra days for any wayward ballots but only those mailed on or before the due date will be eligible for consideration.

Ensuring the integrity of the balloting process was paramount, chairman of the selectmen Melinda Gervais said.  Each envelope provided with the ballot contains the return address of the recipient allowing town officers to check off the voter or taxpayer.

The ballot within will be kept folded before being secured in a locked ballot box stored in the vault in the basement of the municipal office, Ms. Gervais said.  Only Town Clerk Teresa Potwin has access to the key that opens the vault, she added.

“We’re doing everything we can to make sure no one can get in there and stuff the ballot box,” Ms. Gervais said.  “We want this to represent the wishes of this town.”

Earlier in the evening the selectmen were asked what measures the town would take to protect the people of the town from possible negative effects of industrial wind turbines.  Resident Kathleen Nelson expressed her concern that oversight of the developers is sorely lacking.  The Public Service Board, she said, appears to have no interest at all in evaluating the financial capability of developers.  If a project fails or produces negative effects, would the taxpayers of the town become responsible for making reparations, she asked.

“How are you going to stop these people from ruining everything I’ve worked so hard to build?” Ms. Nelson said.  “What are you going to do to protect me?”

It is difficult to say what steps the town can take considering the project has not even passed the met tower stage, Ms. Gervais said.  Protecting the public is a job best suited to the regulators both at the state and federal level, Selectman James Webb said.

“I guess that’s where the state and whatever regulations they have come into play,” Mr. Webb said.  “As long as they follow the rules, I don’t see what we can do.”

The state’s interest in protecting the public seems tenuous at best, resident Joe Arborio said.  The Public Service Board makes its decisions without ever needing to accept any responsibility for the outcomes of those decisions, he said.

“If it goes wrong they have no responsibility,” Mr. Arborio said.  “It’s what I imagine living in a dictatorship would be like — here it is, deal with it.”

Evaluating the financial stability of a developer falls outside of the town’s jurisdiction, Brighton Administrative Assistant Joel Cope said.  As long as the developer comes in with the money in hand there is no reason for the town to become involved, he said.  It would be different, however, if the developer sought the town’s support for a grant, Mr. Cope added.

“If the town became involved in the financing of a project we would certainly involve an attorney and closely review the risk,” Mr. Cope said.

Ms. Nelson also expressed concern about the potential for the town to become mired in litigation should the developer fail to live up to its promises.  Given the problems that have surfaced around other wind projects both in Vermont and around the nation, the potential for the town needing to litigate seems high, Pam Arborio said.

“I think this is going to end up in the judicial arena before it’s all over,” Ms. Arborio said.

While some people have come forward to express concerns about the negative effect wind turbines would have on the town, those fears represent only half of the issue, Selectman Mike Worth said.

“The other half will be asking what we’re going to do to promote renewable energy in this state,” Mr. Worth said.  “That’s why we’re doing this survey — so we can find out what the majority of people want.  I will do what the town supports.”

Ms. Gervais concluded the discussion with a pledge to give serious consideration to all sides of the issue.  What stance the selectmen will adopt going forward will be heavily influenced by the outcome of the balloting.

“We all have our own opinions about this but we’re willing to put that aside and represent the people of this town,” Ms. Gervais said.  “We’re trying to prepare and get our information ready for when the project finally comes down.”

 Bollard crashes

 In other business the selectmen gave thought as to how to prevent drivers from crashing into the concrete posts that delineate travel lanes at the Rail Depot building.  The large, immovable yellow posts have been struck no less than seven times in recent months.  The posts were originally placed there to prevent tall vehicular traffic from crashing into and tearing off the canopy roof adjacent to the Community National Bank’s drive through.

“We thought we were fixing one problem but ended up creating another,” Ms. Gervais lamented.

The trouble with the posts, or bollards as they are properly known, is that they can easily disappear in the blind spots of larger trucks and SUVs, Mr. Worth said.  Indeed, he also admitted that he has experienced near misses of his own with the bollards.

The selectmen authorized Mr. Cope to investigate the purchase of curbing to provide at least some warning to vehicles before they strike the posts.

contact Richard Creaser at [email protected]

For more free articles from the Chronicle like this one, see our Editor’s Picks pages. For all the Chronicle’s stories, pick up a print copy or subscribe, either for print or digital editions.

Share

On wind: let’s go against the national trend of polarization

Editors,

The citizens of the Northeast Kingdom of Vermont and Vermont as a whole are embroiled in a seriously divisive battle over the region’s ridgelines and the mountaintops, as big business attempts to line them with industrial wind turbines.  Neighbors and former friends are at odds and there is little middle ground between those who despise the very thought of gigantic structures lining the mountaintops and those who see the wind turbines as the solution to all our energy and global warming challenges.

I don’t know!  I have read widely on the issues and although there is ample argument put forth both for and against these projects, I cannot decide; is it good?  Is it bad?  Is it like most issues in which there are elements of both?  I do know that I would feel better if I thought these wind projects were being done for Vermonters rather than for the political expediency of the politicians and GMP.…

As I look out on every clear day from my home, on the opposite ridge, to observe the construction of the Lowell wind project I am amazed at the human endeavor that has been able over the past 15 months turn a mountain range into a commercial entity of this magnitude.  I have made 31 hikes to the mountaintops at every vantage point from the southernmost point to the northernmost point, a distance of three and a half miles, in order to see for myself the entire impact.

During that same period my wife and I have made nearly the same number of trips off trail behind Mount Pisgah, in Westmore, “Searching for Arcadia.”  The Arcadia Retreat was a large and elegant hotel built to cater to artists and writers and the like.  It was built on a 400-acre farm that had been cleared and included house, barn and outbuildings.  The hotel, built in 1895, burned down around 1923, was built way up high at 2,200 feet of elevation on Mt. Pisgah.  Although the Arcadia Retreat could be seen for miles with what was described in the advertising of the day, as expansive lawns, and although it was built on massive stone foundations, and although I already knew where it was, it took me 18 hikes to the site with maps, compass, and the assistance of Google Earth, before I could assure myself I had definitely found it.  I wonder if in the early 1890s the residents of the area supported the project or did they complain about taking a fine farm and ruining it with a luxury hotel for wealthy ner-do-wells?  Again, I don’t know, but I do know that there is almost nothing there today to show for that human activity.

I am not equating the changes made by horse, ox, and hand on Mt. Pisgah, to what modern equivalents have done with 30-40 gigantic earth machines and three quarters of a million pounds of explosives to the top of the Lowell Mountain ridgeline, but I am asking that people consider the loss of community and relationships to be on par with our loss of a natural resource as represented by a “pristine” ridgeline.  In my 30 trips up essentially all sides of the mountain range I have observed cellar holes, very old stumps from logging, log roads, old fences, stone cairns, old metal gas and oil cans, and three very old cream cans, one on the very top of the ridge just north of the northernmost turbine.  I observed, near the southern end between turbine 1 and 3 what appeared to be a four-to-six-acre rectangle of maple trees sitting right on top of the ridge and which appeared to have been cultivated there by some past steward of the land.  I have followed the Catamount Trail over the ridge from Lowell and south down along the eastern side of the ridge on its way to Craftsbury.  Not the least bit incidentally that trail basically parallels the famous Bayley-Hazen Road that was slashed through the truly pristine forest more than 230 years ago.…

I am proud of the stubborn Vermonters, both those who were born here and those who moved here for the love of it and became Vermonters.  I am proud to be in a place where people will fight for what they believe is their right to use and protect their land and where they are willing to perform civil disobedience to stand for their beliefs.

I am, however, certainly not proud to view the vicious attacks made by some of my fellow stubborn Vermonters on other stubborn Vermonters who have a differing opinion of what is “right.”  I am not proud of comments made about those who care enough to attempt to protect their land and interests or the denigrating comments about the protesters who stood for their own beliefs.…

My neighbors, friends, and I lament the loss of this Green Mountain Vermont resource, but what really defined Vermont was not only its physical makeup but rather it was its people.  The strong families, communities, and sense of shared purpose that took this land from extreme wilderness to a modern, proactive, self-sufficient state through the 1800s and a major influence far beyond its size for the rest of our country from revolution through today.  And that is precisely what we Vermonters are at stake of losing through this turmoil.  The relationships, the synergistic power of community, and the intense drive of public service; for the good of the community not for the good of myself!

In my lifetime the turbines will be there, in the next lifetime they will, if deemed worth it, remain, but in a few human lifetimes will there be visible sign?  Probably not in any way that really matters.  However the human relationships lost or cultivated will affect the “Vermonters” a lot longer and more severely than the physical ones.

Let’s go against the national trend of polarization in all endeavors and allow our neighbors to disagree with us without rancor.  We cannot mandate such action through any legislative means, order our neighbors to be tolerant, or to otherwise control others.  We CAN however change ourselves instantly.  Refuse to denigrate your friend, political foe, or competitor.  Tolerate differences and understand we go into it together and will come out of it together and if we withhold judgment and let some time pass we may well learn that we can go on together as well.

Let us search for our Vermont Arcadia, in both aesthetics and in philosophically.

Sincerely,

Dick Spaulding

Albany

(Until 1815, the town of Lutterloh)

 

Share

Lowell Six wind turbine protesters convicted of trespassing

Eric Gillard, the brother of one of the Lowell Six, holds a sign in front of the courthouse. Photo by Paul Lefebvre

by Paul Lefebvre

copyright the Chronicle 8-22-2012

NEWPORT — It took a jury of nine women and three men four hours to find wind opponents known as the Lowell Six guilty of unlawful trespass, following a one-day trial here in Superior Court.

The verdict appeared to reflect a trial in which a straight law and order issue trumped a disputed property boundary.

Conflicting testimony over the dispute may have confused the jurors as about an hour or so into their deliberation, they sent a note to the judge.

They wanted to know if there could be a legal owner when a property is in dispute.  And if the dispute was still current.

Trial Judge Martin Maley complimented the quality of the questions, but ruled each irrelevant.

“Do the best you can based on the evidence you heard,” he instructed them.

Disputed property boundaries were the key to the defense case:  If the state could not prove that the protesters were standing on property that was in the lawful possession of Green Mountain Power (GMP), then the defendants could not be convicted of unlawful trespass.

The prosecution argued that GMP was in lawful possession of the property, and that the protesters had broken the law when they refused to leave the land that had been posted by the company.

The trial was the first to be held involving protesters against the Lowell wind project that is being constructed by GMP.

Each of the six were arrested on December 5, 2011, when they refused police orders to leave posted property on Lowell Mountain while blocking the path of heavy construction vehicles.

Although the six presented their case as a group, the jury found each guilty as individuals.

Six more protesters are scheduled to be arraigned next month for a similar confrontation on the same mountain earlier this month.

Held Wednesday of last week, August 15, the trial was surprisingly silent on the underlying and highly charged issue that caused the defendants to break the law.  Before the jury entered the courtroom, Judge Maley warned he would only allow limited testimony on why the defendants were on the land.  And nothing, per se, on wind itself.

The jury, he said, knew what the case was about.  “It’s not a secret to them.”

So wind remained the elephant in the room:  the one everyone knew was there and agreed not to see.

Surprisingly, the only one to raise it as an issue was prosecutor Sarah Baker, when she sought to challenge the intent of the defense’s star witness, surveyor Paul Hannan of Calais, formerly of Holland and at one time a Kingdom legislator who served in the House.

Placed on the stand as an expert witness by defense attorney Kristina Michelsen, Mr. Hannan was prepared to provide the rock-bottom kind of testimony the defense needed to support its case.

Mr. Hannan testified that he had 31 years of experience as a surveyor and the credentials to qualify as an expert.  The rules of evidence, however, say that either side can challenge an expert’s witness.  And when her turn came, Ms. Baker proceeded vigorously.

First she asked Mr. Hannan about his association with Sterling College, and learned that during the years 1990 and 1991, he was one of the faculty members who accompanied students on three-to-four-day expeditions on Lowell Mountain.

The prosecutor pressed on.  Did he have any prior knowledge of Don Nelson — who allowed the students to use his property and who also is in a property dispute with GMP concerning the boundary line between his land on the mountain and the adjourning site where the utility is constructing its wind project.

No, said Mr. Hannan.

Ms. Baker may have thought she had found a chink in the defense’s armor when she abruptly asked the witness if he had any association with any anti-wind group.

Instead, the question brought a prompt objection from attorney Michelsen, along with a few hisses and murmurs from the 35 or so spectators in the gallery, a largely anti-wind crowd.

Judge Maley sustained the objection and Ms. Baker sat down, taking with her any references that the industrial wind project on Lowell Mountain had anything to do with the case.

There was a stirring in the closing moments of the trial when one of the defendants, Dr. Ronald Holland, took the stand.  The doctor’s name had surfaced earlier in the trial when Deputy Sheriff Phil Brooks testified for the state.

Of the ten protesters on the mountain that day, the deputy said he only knew Dr. Holland from previous personal and professional encounters.  He went on to testify that about two weeks prior to the December 5 confrontation, he received a call at home from Dr. Holland.  The doctor, according to the testimony, told the deputy he was going to the mountain that day to protest and wanted the deputy to arrest him.

“I informed him I was off duty and it wasn’t going to be me,” Deputy Brooks testified, adding that he passed what he characterized an “odd request” on to the State Police, who didn’t do anything either.

That testimony was before the jury when Dr. Holland took the stand late in the day.  The 67-year-old resident of Irasburg told jurors that days prior to the confrontation with police, he had gone onto the site and measured with twine the distance where he believed Mr. Nelson’s property ended.

And on the day of the confrontation, he testified he went to the limit of that measured distance.

But in a question that had nearly everyone in the courtroom leaning forward on the edge of their seats, Ms. Michelsen asked the emergency room doctor why he had climbed to the top of Lowell Mountain on December 5, 2011.

He paused and bowed his head a moment before answering that he had gone there to “protest the taking of Don Nelson’s property.”

Defendant David Rodgers, 69, of Craftsbury followed Dr. Holland to the stand and testified that he too believed he was on the Nelson property when police moved in to arrest him.

He testified that Dr. Holland had tied a block of wood to the end of a string as a means of measuring the property’s boundary.  And that he was “very careful not to” trespass on the land GMP is leasing to erect its 21-turbine wind plant.

The procession to the stand might have continued had not the prosecution agreed to stipulate that the remaining four defendants had followed the doctor’s lead.

But if the defense thought a protest over property rights could overturn the confrontation that followed, the jury saw it differently.  Nor did any witness refute or challenge the deputy’s testimony over what happened that day.

Deputy Brooks testified he received a call around nine that morning from GMP, informing him that protesters were on the mountain blocking heavy equipment from working on the wind project.  Police arrived roughly two hours later, and observed that the group was blocking cranes and big trucks.

“They were stopped on either side of where the defendants were,” he testified.

Deputy Brooks testified that prior to December 5, GMP had shown him a map of the project and its property boundaries.  And when confronting the protesters, he said he gave everyone the opportunity to step back behind the property line between GMP and the Nelson farm.

Of the ten protesters, three complied with a police order to step aside.  Six refused and were placed under what sounded like a gentleman’s arrest.  The deputy said he chatted cordially with the defendants and discussed everything but the project going on around them.

“I limited myself to that,” said Deputy Brooks.

The biggest problem police encountered that day, the deputy added, was finding a way to transport their prisoners off the mountain.

Police also arrested a seventh individual, Chronicle publisher Chris Braithwaite, who is challenging his arrest on grounds he was there doing his job as a reporter.

GMP’s intent to keep people off the site and the property it has under lease was deliberate and thorough, according to its project manager Charles Pughe, who also oversaw the posting.

“We cleaned out several stores,” he said, speaking of the no trespassing signs the company purchased.  “We had to have so many of them.”

Mr. Pughe testified that the land was initially posted for safety and to keep hikers out of harm’s way.  But he also noted that problems with people at the site began appearing sometime in October, as campers began to gather on the neighboring Nelson land.

Terms of the lease gave GMP authority to exclude or allow access to anyone the company chose, he said.

Mr. Pughe was off site the day the protesters were arrested.  But under cross-examination by Ms. Michelsen, he said, he could tell from photographic evidence — including photographs taken by the arrested journalist — that the protesters were on GMP’s leased property at the time of their arrest.

He estimated the face of the turbine would be about 200 feet away from the Nelson boundary line.

From the moment he took the stand it was evident that Don Nelson was not going to be a friendly witness.

He gave mostly monosyllabic responses to the prosecutor’s questions, and when asked to read a document, he shrugged and said he didn’t have his glasses.  That brought a query from the bench

“Need your glasses, Mr. Nelson?” asked Judge Maley.

“Don’t have them with me,” replied Mr. Nelson.

The prosecutor decided to try a different tack by asking the witness if he had given Dr. Holland permission to go on his property.

“My land is open.  People come and go,” he replied.  “I don’t invite or not invite.  We don’t post it.”

When Ms. Michelsen’s turn came to ask the questions, Mr. Nelson said that Dr. Holland had come to see him about the boundary dispute, and that he had provided him with the coordinates that were in disagreement.  According to his testimony, the dispute began years ago with the landowner who leased the land to GMP.  At the time, the witness testified, there was a difference of roughly 420 feet.

For its final witness, the state put on the surveyor who recently bought out a surveying business in Derby Line that surveyed the Nelson property several years ago in hopes of resolving the boundary dispute.

Andrew Nadeau testified that the previous owner had surveyed the property in dispute in 2007, and that he had spent in excess of two weeks surveying it as well.  But the surveyor who spent the longest time on the stand turned out to be the expert for the defense, Mr. Hannan.

Throughout his testimony, Mr. Hannan repeatedly testified there were fundamental mistakes in the 2007 survey — that affected the boundaries of lots leased by GMP.

He told jurors that in surveying the same ground, he found that markers had been inappropriately defined.  He said there must be corroborating evidence to define a marker or monument that had been used in the past when the land was first surveyed.  And such markers, he added, could be used to determine boundaries.

“When is a stone pile a stone pile or a monument?” he asked at one point.

Jurors already had heard from Mr. Nelson that surveying is not an exact science, and depends in part on the quality of surveys done in the past.  Mr. Nelson noted that he and his neighbor had tried to settle survey discrepancies on their abutting lands through an agreement.  Their boundary dispute was rekindled, however, when the agreement came unraveled.

Mr. Hannan testified that in surveying the land for the Nelsons, he found almost no markers on the ground that were left when the land was first surveyed in 1790.  And he told the jurors that the monuments defined by the 2007 survey were inaccurate.

Closing arguments were short, lasting about five minutes apiece.  Each attorney offered similar arguments to those they had made in their opening statements.

The verdict clearly took the defense and its supporters by surprise.  After asking the judge to poll each juror for a verdict, Ms. Michelsen said she would be filing post trial motions.  The court gave her ten days to submit them.

Prosecutor Baker said she would be requesting a restitution hearing, which means the state will try to convince the court to order the defendants to pay compensation to GMP.

The late hour verdict led the defendants to call off a press conference they had planned to hold at the conclusion of the trial.

In a press release Monday, Dr. Holland was quoted as saying:

“We are obviously disappointed with the verdict but respect the jury’s efforts. This is, and will continue to be, a complex case that rejects the simple and disingenuous offerings of Green Mountain Power.  We will continue to educate Vermonters on the science and math of ridgeline wind-generated electricity.”

As Mr. Pughe was walking away from the courthouse, he said he hoped the verdict would make his job easier.

The remaining four defendants of the Lowell Six are:  Ryan Gillard, 23, of Plainfield; Suzanna Jones, 50, of East Hardwick; Ann Morse, 48, of Craftsbury; and Eric Wallace-Senft, 46, of West Woodbury.

contact Paul Lefebvre at [email protected]

For more free articles from the Chronicle like this one, see our Editor’s Picks pages.  For all the Chronicle‘s stories, pick up a print copy or subscribe, either for print or digital.

Share

Tractor-trailer with turbine tips over

A state trooper measures the length of the path the upended trailer’s wheels made in the roadside grass. Photos by Chris Braithwaite

copyright the Chronicle July 25, 2012

by Chris Braithwaite

The bottom section of a massive wind turbine bound for Green Mountain Power’s Lowell Mountain project tipped over Thursday, July 19, when it encountered a paving crew on Interstate 91.

The interstate was closed to southbound traffic for about three hours Friday morning while a crane retrieved the long white tube from the ditch and put it on a truck.  The load made it to the job site on Route 100 south of Lowell Village just before noon on Friday, according to Phil Brooks, chief deputy of the Orleans County Sheriff’s Department.

The highly specialized tractor-trailer, owned by Lone Star Transportation, was in the passing lane, just north of the Orleans exit, when a left rear tire left the pavement and hit soft ground.  Tire marks in the roadside grass indicate that what followed must have been an agonizingly slow catastrophe.  The marks moved ever further from the pavement, ever lower down a gentle slope for 500 feet until they came to the trailer, its rear wheels overturned in the ditch.  The tractor remained upright.

Speed was not a factor, State Trooper Rajesh Hailey said in his press release, and the driver, Jimmy Maddox of Gainesville, Texas, was not hurt.

Deputy Brooks said a crane was immediately dispatched from Desrochers Crane Service in Derby.  It was unable to lift the tower section, but did assist a larger crane that arrived early Friday from Massachusetts, Mr. Brooks said.  The interstate was closed at about 8 a.m. to allow space for the big crane to set up.  Once that was done, Mr. Brooks said, it took only half an hour to recover the tower section.  The highway was reopened at about 11 a.m.

A section of a wind turbine destined for Lowell Mountain rests in the ditch beside Interstate 91, just north of the Orleans exit.

Under the terms of its permit and state law governing overweight loads, Mr. Brooks said, Green Mountain Power’s contractor can use the highways from half an hour before sunrise to half an hour after sunset.  However, loads must lay over in a “safe haven” between 7 and 8 a.m., noon and 1 p.m., and 4 to 5 p.m., Mr. Brooks said.  Thursday’s load had just pulled out of the Coventry rest area when the accident occurred a few miles south, at 5:16 p.m.

Opponents of Green Mountain Power’s project, who held up a truck for about two hours on July 16, may continue to try and block the loads.  The Mountain Occupiers, a group that has spearheaded several acts of civil disobedience in opposition to the project, scheduled a “civil disobedience training” in Craftsbury on Tuesday evening, July 24.

In an e-mail announcing the training, the group said:  “As our powerful actions blocking the turbine trucks in Lowell showed, our cause can draw crowds, media, support, and even negotiate with the law.  We don’t have to be bystanders to the destruction of our state.  The time for action is now!”

Two protesters were arrested on July 24 after they stepped in front of a truck just before it turned into the Lowell site.  They were cited for disorderly conduct, but released from custody after negotiations with police in which protesters agreed to clear the highway.

contact Chris Braithwaite at [email protected]

For more free articles from the Chronicle like this one, see our Editor’s Pick page.  For all the Chronicle‘s stories, pick up a print copy or subscribe, either for print or digital.  

Share