Skip to content

Candidates’ Views on Industrial Wind

November 6, 2012

Candidates’ Views on Industrial Wind 

Randy Brock (R), Candidate for Governor, attended the Rally in Montpelier

“(Governor Shumlin’s) massive, taxpayer-funded subsidies to a small number of politically-connected solar/wind companies will force all Vermonters to pay up to 800% more for that portion of their electricity for years to come. Governor Shumlin’s 2012 expansion of these schemes will cost ratepayers more than $95 million over the next 20 years just to reduce Vermont’s carbon emissions by less than 1%… Meanwhile, until we thoroughly study the potential environmental damage caused by large-scale, industrial wind development, my administration will demand a moratorium on it.”

Phil Scott (R), incumbent candidate for Lieutenant Governor

“…supports a 2-year moratorium in order for a thorough assessment of the performance of industrial wind projects and their environmental impacts.”

Cassandra Gekas (D), candidate for Lieutenant Governor

 “I oppose a moratorium”

Jack McMullen (R), candidate for Vermont Attorney General, attended the Rally in Montpelier

“I agree with the rally organizers that industrial wind does not make sense for Vermont, a state dependent on tourism and the natural beauty that attracts visitors and a state which is not ranked in the Top 20 for wind suitability by the American Wind Energy Association, an industry lobbying group.

Wind developers are assured of making money if they can get a project approved because of the heavy subsidies on both the construction end and through the rates charged to customers for wind power.

Were I to be elected Attorney General, the obvious conflicts of interest among contributors to elected officials, particularly the governor and the Democratic Party in the state, VPIRG, and wind developers would be an area worthy of investigation. The contributions appear to have had a large influence on Vermont energy policy and yielded developers who made them a windfall in state subsidies.”

John MacGovern (R), candidate for US Senate

Here in Vermont our beautiful mountains and their ridge lines are being threatened by massive scale industrial wind power projects. I will vote to end subsidies for this assault on Vermont’s environmental treasure.”

Mark Donka (R), candidate for US House of Representatives

I agree with Randy Brock on this one” “In Washington, I would vote against the tax credits”

Peg Flory (R), incumbent candidate for Vermont Senate, Rutland County

“I have tried to be open minded about this issue and look at the good and the bad of the project and then weigh them both. I have come to the conclusion that there are many minuses and very few, if any, benefits. It is not baseload; it is expensive; it mars the landscape; it is not necessarily environmentally friendly. For these and other reasons, I support a Moratorium.”

Andy Donaghy (R) incumbent candidate for State Rep, Rutland 1, Poultney, Ira

Supports moratorium.

Tom Burditt, (R) incumbent candidate for State Rep, Rutland-2, Wallingford, Clarendon, Proctor, W. Rutland, part of Tinmouth

“I did not vote for the Governors “Energy Bill”!
Mr. Potter did. Why is this important? Mr. Potter says he opposes “Industrial Wind”. That’s great! We agree on that issue! However, the Energy Bill he voted for gives incentives and special considerations to renewable projects. This means Mr. Potter supported special considerations and guaranteed favorable contracts to industrial wind companies, which he opposes!?

A few years ago Mr. Potter was at the forefront to save Ira’s mountains from Industrial Wind. This past year he supported Industrial Wind through the Energy Bill. Now he is involved with the anti-industrial wind group fighting to keep windmills off Grandpa’s Knob.

I will try to continue to have a consistent voting record on the issues important to my constituents and not play two sides of an issue at the same time.”

few years ago Mr. Potter was at the fore front to save Ira’s Mountains from Industrial Wind. This past year he supported Industrial Wind through the Energy Bill and now he is involved with the anti-industrial wind group fighting to keep wind mills from Grandpa’s Knob.
I will try to continue to have a consistent voting record on the issues important to my constituents and not play two sides of an issue at the same time.

(voted for amendments to Bill H.718 instructing CVPS/ GMC to give back the “borrowed” $21 million to rate payers)

Glen Eno (R), candidate for State Rep, Rutland – 2

Supports moratorium

Ken Fredette, (D) candidate for State Rep, Rutland – 2,

 “I’m opposed to Industrial Ridgeline massive windtowers as are proposed for Grandpa’s Knob.”

Dave Potter, (D) incumbent candidate for State Rep, Rutland – 2

“I oppose Re-Union Wind Energy project , it’s impacts are too great on both sides of the valley.”

(Voted against Bill H.718, siding with CVPS/ GMP in not returning the “borrowed” $21 million to rate payers and voted for the 2012 Energy Billl)

Bob Helm (R), incumbent candidate for State Rep, Rutland 3, Castleton, Hubbardton, Fair Haven, West Haven

“I was wind supportive until I saw what happens to the landscape in the process. I think that the destruction to the ridgeline combined with the needed financial assistance from tax payers in the way of tax credits to make it work encourages me to support a moratorium on industrial wind.”

Butch Shaw (R), incumbent candidate for State Rep Rutland – 6, Brandon – Pittsford -Sudbury

I will support well written legislation requiring a moratorium on industrial wind projects. I currently represent Pittsford and Sudbury and the Town of Pittsford has spoken loudly opposing industrial wind in the area. I have spoken to Sen. Joe Benning and other Senators and they have assured me they will move forward with such legislation.

Seth M. Hopkins (R), Candidate for State Rep, Rutland – 6, Brandon – Pittsford – Sudbury

“Ridges aren’t renewable. Currently, the state is using our tax dollars to give incentives to out-of-state developers to build these industrial wind projects, which then produce intermittent rather than constant energy sold back to ratepayers at above-market premiums. In this way, wind development as practiced in Vermont has been very regressive. Vermont should initiate a three-year moratorium on new industrial wind projects. During this time, we should undertake a careful examination of currently-permitted projects such as Lowell: we need to know the actual results rather than optimistic predictions regarding effects on the environment, property values, and Vermont electric ratepayers (all of us) and taxpayers (all of us).

I have a fuller discussion of this question, which is so important to our district because of the Grandpa’s Knob project proposed for Pittsford Ridge, on my campaign website, www.sethhopkins.us; select the “Industrial Wind” tab.”

Advertisements
No comments yet

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: