Skip to content

Wind project dominates meeting on PSB ‘process’

June 30, 2012

Wind project dominates meeting on PSB ‘process’

By Lucia Suarez

STAFF WRITER | June 30,2012

The wind towers proposed in the region weighed heavily on people’s minds as they discussed the state’s regulatory process.

About 40 people attended an informational panel Thursday night at the Rutland Intermediate School to learn the Public Service Board’s decision-making process on energy projects.

The event, sponsored by the Rutland Regional Planning Commission, featured John Beling, Anne Margolis, senior officials with the Department of Public Service, and Bill Coster, policy analyst with the state Agency of Natural Resources.

“You should look at the Public Service Board as a court,” said PSB board member John Burke, who was in the audience. “We are working as judges. We have to listen to the evidence. … We take evidence and weigh that evidence and make a decision.”

Although panelists focused on the board’s regulatory process, the audience’s questions were heavily motivated by the proposed wind farm project on Grandpa’s Knob.

Lisa Wright-Garcia of Florence asked Coster about the wind project developer’s assertion that ANR only has a “desktop assessment” of the area. She said the developer, Reunion Power, will have more in-depth information than the agency possesses once it completes its studies.

Coster said, in general, the agency has a lot of baseline information from all areas of Vermont. He said the professionals generally used by developers are highly regarded and use the same guidelines approved by ANR.

“The way we approach it is that we put the burden of proof on the developer,” Coster said. “Typically this information is very objective. We do field-check things that may seem suspect. The ridges in the area are well known to our staff.”

He added that ANR goes through a rigorous process years before the project goes before the PSB as it works with applicants to minimize any “undue adverse effects” in the area.

“Through the process we might come to an agreement with the developer on specific places to mitigate the impacts,” Coster said.

Beling said his department follows statutory and detailed criteria to determine whether a project is a public good before they make a recommendation to the PSB. He said they consider the findings from the developer along with information from the department’s experts and outside source.

“The department would look at the information and we would put that into the records,” he said when asked about a report from the Vermont Electric Power Company on New England’s energy.

Asked how much “clout” local municipalities have when opposing a project, Beling said the PSB makes the final decisions, but it considers local votes and clearly written community plans. Though, he added, it was on a case-by-case basis.

“It’s a state process. It’s not a local process,” Beling said. “You can’t prevent (a developer) from filing a petition.”

Section 248, regulated by the PSB, is a Vermont land use law that requires utilities to apply for a Certificate of Public Good.

At least 45 days before they file with the PSB, developers must present complete project plans to regional planning commissions and towns affected by the project, Margolis said.

PSB board members visit the site, at least one public hearing is held in the county where the project is located, followed by a series of hearings where testimony is taken.

“This allows for the board to listen to public concerns they might not get to hear,” Margolis said.

2 Comments leave one →
  1. July 1, 2012 9:01 am

    I would like to clarify my comment quoted above. The first sentence was correct, the second is not so much. I asked for a comment on the developers assertion that the ANR has only done a desktop review and then asked why the ANR would accept studies commissioned by the developer as superior to research done by the ANR.

    In my opinion, Mr. Coster did not answer my question very satisfactorily, but instead gave us a load of political double talk. He also gave completely contradictory information. On the one hand he said they spend many hours often years working on the concerns with a given project, that this often includes field studies, and that this is done years before a PSB application is filed. On the other hand, he said they didn’t have the staff to complete all the studies needed so they would rely on studies done by the developer and would “review” those studies for veracity.

    My question remains “Why should we accept studies bought and paid for by the developer, over studies done by our own state Agency of Natural Resources?” Instead of allowing the developer to hire the studies (and thus buy the results – who are we kidding here?) why doesn’t the state require whatever fee necessary of the developer so that they can hire the experts to complete the studies.

    Lisa Wright Garcia

  2. Joy Loso permalink
    July 4, 2012 12:21 pm

    if you have enough money to pay/bribe/scam etc.,etc. the people who are in control of a governing body then you can do A N Y T H I N G………quote ““The way we approach it is that we put the burden of proof on the developer,” Coster said. “Typically this information is very objective.” unquote……….ROFL oh yes, I bet it’s very objective. I hope everyone is paying attention to all this when elections roll around.
    Can you spell ‘corruption’……………………

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: