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
Gathering public comment is a good beginning to this process
Provide mechanisms for local control
Ridgeline development should require Act 250 review
Two to five year moratorium to research impacts; proceed
cautiously
Consider low altitude wind development
Collaborate w/ other agencies in developing policy
Public Service Department should assess all potential power
sources
ANR policy will affect wind power development throughout
Vermont
ANR fact sheets seem even-handed
Use of ANR Lands
ANR lands are for public use—commercial uses inappropriate
Mission statement and public trust preclude commercial
development of ANR lands
Wind is a natural resource—appropriate to develop
on a commercial scale
Develop small scale wind as demonstration projects, but
not on ridgelines
Consider wind projects on a case-by-case basis
Wind development more appropriate use of ANR lands than
ski areas, cell towers, or logging
Develop sites already developed for ski areas and communications
facilities
Revenues from wind development should go toward land stewardship
Information and Education Needed
Educate public re energy conservation strategies and model
these strategies
Educate public re wind power
Compare impacts and costs of all energy sources
Comprehensive cost/benefit analysis: environmental & economic
factors, wildlife, tourism, property values
Info re long-term wildlife impacts
Info re recreation impacts
Effects on electric rates, tourism, property values, state
land accessibility
Info re experience of other wind sites: Searsburg, Pennsylvania,California,
Denmark
Info re how many turbines might be placed on ANR lands
Info re latest wind technology
Role
of Wind Power in Vermont’s
Energy Mix
Promote conservation
Increase use of renewable energy sources
Develop alternative power sources; decrease dependence
on the grid
Decentralize energy production
Reduce dependence on fossil fuels
Increase Vermont’s energy self-sufficiency
Consider all alternative energy sources: photovoltaic,
microhydro, wood, wastewater sludge, methanol, vegetable
oil, fuel cells
Wind preferable to coal, oil and nuclear
Hydro preferable to wind
Wind is preferable to hydro
Consider purchase of Connecticut River dams
Wind power doesn’t help w/ summer peak use
Concern re reliability, intermittent nature of wind, need
for backup
Keep wind energy in-state
Green credits are used by coal plants
More pollution from autos and internal combustion than
from power plants
Wind power development has an inordinate impact on the
Northeast Kingdom
Economic Issues
Wind power can reduce energy costs
Wind power can increase energy costs
Local communities should benefit by receiving lower electric
rates
Negative impact on tourism and Vermont “brand”
Decreased property values
Effect of wind development on long-term viability of ski
industry, esp. Burke Mountain Ski Area
Economic impacts of global warming on maple and ski industries
Environmental Considerations
Wind is clean, renewable; low environmental costs
Wind won’t affect pollution problems
Impact on sensitive high altitude ecosystems
Preserve ridgelines and wild areas
Wind has lesser impact on wildlife than other energy sources
Wildlife impacts
No air quality benefits from wind power development
Erosion and water quality issues
Sound
Impact on watersheds
Moose habitat
Impacts of road construction
Develop energy sources like wind that reduce global warming
Wind development won’t affect global warming
Adverse affects of increased access to ridgelines
Visual Impacts
Visual impacts of wind development on scenic areas and
quality of life
Light pollution
Wind turbines serve as a visual reminder of our energy
consumption
Recreation and Safety
Impact of ice throw on public safety, recreation and public
access
Project Life Span and Decommissioning
Consider impacts on next two generations
Searsburg obsolete in seven years
Will projects be viable if subsidies evaporate?
Who pays for decommissioning?
Require performance bond
