Vt. Supreme Court rules Sheffield wind project can go ahead
|
|
Toolbox
Staff, wire report - Published: February 7, 2009
MONTPELIER – The Vermont Public Service Board was right to issue a certificate of public good for a 16-turbine wind project on a Sheffield ridgeline, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled Friday.
In its decision, the court said the board acted within its jurisdiction when it issued the certificate for the project being proposed by a company now called Vermont Wind LLC.
"It is evident that the board properly exercised its discretion here, weighing the alternatives presented to it," said the decision, written by Justice Brian Burgess. "We find no basis to disturb its conclusion that this project, with appropriate conditions, complies with the statute and promotes the general good of the state."
Power from the 40-megawatt project is scheduled to be used by Washington Electric Cooperative in East Montpelier to provide green power for its 10,000 customers, as well as other utilities. WEC was an early backer of the wind project and has been one of the state's leaders in alternative energy, also developing methane power from a low-cost generation plant at a landfill in Coventry.
Vermont Wind said it was pleased with the decision.
"We believe this project has the potential to bring significant economic and environmental benefits to the state and we look forward to continuing to work with the town of Sheffield and the surrounding region to bring clean, wind energy to the people of Vermont," said a statement issued by Vermont Wind's parent company First Wind, of Newton, Mass.
The company has said it will employ up to 75 people during the design, engineering and construction of the facility, with the potential for local employment on road, foundation and electrical line construction work.
A citizens group called Ridge Protectors had appealed the board's August 2007 decision to issue the certificate, arguing that the 420-foot towers would harm tourism and the state's rural character.
The group also argued the board should not have granted the certificate because First Wind had failed to negotiate stable price contracts with Vermont utilities for the power it would produce.
"Obviously, Ridge Protectors is very disappointed," said member Paul Brouha of Sutton. "Our perception is if they can build a project here ... they can do it virtually anywhere in Vermont."
He said the group saw itself at the forefront of trying to preserve the wild and natural character of the Northeast Kingdom. He said there were a number of major wind projects proposed across Vermont by a number of different companies.
"This will probably open the door for further development," Brouha said.
He said Ridge Protectors would probably regroup and focus on ensuring that Vermont Wind complies with the 32 conditions the board put on the certificate it issued for the Sheffield project.
"As time has elapsed, the developer has gone ahead and tried to satisfy some of those conditions and in our view has done less than a complete job," he said.
First Wind spokesman John Lamontagne said the project needs a stormwater permit before construction can begin. He did not know when that permit application might be acted upon.
"We hope to move forward with it as soon as we can," Lamontagne said.
Once all the permits are obtained Lamontagne said he expected construction would take about a year.
Renewable energy advocates said they were pleased the project finally has a green light.
"This decision reinforces the board's finding that this wind farm project is good for the economy, which is particularly important during these tough times" said Lawrence Mott, a board member of Renewable Energy Vermont. "This is also a good signal that it is time to move ahead with other wind power projects in Vermont."
REV executive director Andrew Perchlik in a statement noted the significance of the Sheffield project from the perspective of renewable energy businesses and investors.
"The long delay and costly permit process for this project has been a major hurdle and had been causing some doubt about the viability of major renewable energy projects in Vermont," he said. "Let's hope this decision sets a new, more positive tone that signals Vermont is open for renewable energy development business."
42