The responses to these questions and the comments made by those who spoke
to the full group at the end of the meeting are summarized below. Please
note that the responses are combined rather than being sorted by question
because many of the responses overlapped. The responses are presented by
topic, so that the reader can see the full range of perspectives on a given
topic.
Policy Development Process and the Role of the State
This is a good process
Need a state energy plan before developing ANR policy
We need an energy conservation policy
Should develop a policy for both private and public lands
Be aware that ANR policy may set precedent for private lands
Policy development timeline too short
Policy development should be democratic, slow, deliberate and rationale
Should have a ballot initiative
Maintain current policy –no wind development
Don’t let developers and investors call the shots
State should honor local ordinances and initiatives
Don’t let Montpelier and Burlington dictate what happens in the
Northeast Kingdom, the last wild part of Vermont
248 process is undemocratic
Review wind projects under Act 250 rather than Section 248
Let ANR and the public create policy, not politicians
Fear that Legislature will override sound ANR policy re wind
Use of ANR Lands
Preserve unexploited areas of Vermont; wilderness is a resource
for everyone
Exclude wind development and other industrial uses
Say “no”: prohibit wind development on both public and
private land
Wind development is inconsistent w/ ANR mission
ANR’s role is preservation and conservation
Don’t change from protection to use
Don’t allow any commercial development of ANR lands
Find a middle course--total prohibition is as reckless as full
development
Might be a role for wind on ANR land
Develop private lands before public lands
Develop already developed state lands before undeveloped lands
Dictate terms rather than reacting to proposals
Look at impacts on adjacent lands
Apply Green Mountain Club policies along Long Trail corridor
Ski areas and telecommunications facilities are questionable uses
of ANR lands
State should use small wind turbines for its facilities
Information Needed
Info re wildlife impacts and bird migration prior to development
Independent studies
Cost benefit analysis of environmental and economic factors
Consider problems of wind development in Denmark and Germany
Role of Wind Power
in Vermont’s Energy Mix
Need future energy sources
Vermont needs to increase energy independence
Need to explore sustainable energy sources
Need to find alternatives to fossil fuels
Wind is good source of alternative energy
Focus on other alternative energy sources, like hydro and hydrogen
Don’t need additional energy sources
Wind development on state lands should be a last resort
Vermont wind power should be used in Vermont
Wind is inefficient and unreliable
Wind doesn’t replace other sources
Purchase Connecticut River dam
Spend money on education and energy conservation
Commit to energy conservation before developing wind
Affects of Renewable Energy Credits --they lead to acid rain
Consider that Searsburg was obsolete after seven years
Wind benefits few at expense of many
Use efficient cars and appliances
Net metering on private property appropriate
Power generated by wind should stay in Vermont
Create incentives for those who produce their own power
Economic Issues
Consider future costs
Wind is the cheapest source of power
Wind power is high cost
Potential negative impact on tourism
Potential positive impact on tourism
Wind won’t create jobs
Developers shouldn’t get all the benefits
Local towns should benefit from nearby projects
Impact on property values
Views are taxed
Turbines weren’t economically viable in California
Wind power development could lead to exodus of wealthy people from
Vermont
Environmental Considerations
Ridgelines small in acreage, but important and fragile
Construction impacts significant
Development impacts irreversible
Concern about global warming
Wind power in Vermont won’t reducemidwestern emissions
Site at lower elevations; this has been done in other countries
Wind power is an environmental and community pollutant
Wind power is non-polluting
Vermonters place a high value on undisturbed wilderness
Vegetation cutting for access may affect watershed and reduce oxygen
creation from foliage
Impact on bear, bird endangered species habitat
Ridgetops are our heritage for future generations
Carefully consider siting—all ridgelines are not equal
Site projects near demand to limit line loss
Low frequency noise
Concern about environmental impacts of other energy sources—acid
rain
Visual Impacts
Mountaintops are Vermont’s symbol a precious resource, should
be left untouched
Don’t destroy our views; scenic beauty important
Night lighting is out of character in Vermont
Keep turbines in scale w/ landscape
Turbines are ugly
Billboards are banned; shouldn’t allow turbines
Turbines would industrialize Vermont’s landscape
Wind farms are beautiful
Recreation and Safety
Ice shear a safety issue; prevents public access
Prohibit turbines within 1,000 feet of the Long Trail; impact on
trail, huts, hikers
Imapcts on snowmobiling, camping, hiking
Maintenance and Decommissioning
Escrow accounts needed
Need decommissioning plan to ensure that taxpayers don’t pay
for removal
