|
|
 |
News
| 2/2/2008 12:14:00 AM | Email this article • Print this article | UPC Wind Moves Ahead
With Sheffield Wind Plans
Tena Starr
Staff Writer
SHEFFIELD -- UPC Wind plans to continue with its construction schedule for a wind farm in Sheffield, even though Ridge Protectors, a citizens group opposed to commercial wind on Vermont's rural ridgelines, has filed an appeal of the Vermont Public Service Board's decision with the Vermont Supreme Court.
"We think the Public Service Board's decision will stand the test of time," said Matt Kearns of UPC, project manager for Sheffield, on Friday.
The Supreme Court could overturn the PSB's decision, if it decides to hear the case. Kearns said UPC has faith that won't happen.
"We're going forward," he said. "We're looking to complete all of the conditions under the certificate of public good. We've played by the rules, and we're trusting that was a careful and direct discussion. We believe in the PSB, so we're making our plans to begin construction."
This month, UPC plans to start putting up meteorological towers to measure wind speed and direction. It hopes to start putting up the actual wind turbines in June and have the project operational by December.
The project involves 16 420-foot turbines on Sheffield ridgelines and is expected to produce enough energy, according to UPC, to power all the homes in Caledonia County.
The energy won't actually go to Caledonia County; it will go onto a grid, one of the reasons opponents object to it. Some say that those who suffer its adverse affects should also directly receive its benefits.
Ridge Protectors appeal mainly addresses the economic benefits, or lack thereof, and the adverse aesthetic affects of the project.
The PSB had ruled that the economic benefits of the 40-megawatt project outweighed its adverse affects, but it attached 32 conditions to its decision.
Ridge Protectors suit, filed by attorneys Dan Hershenson of Norwich and Anthony Roisman of Lyme, N.H., argues that the wind farm will not have a substantial economic benefit to Vermonters, largely because it doesn't have stable power contracts.
Kearns said UPC expects those to be in place this winter.
The appeal also argues that the PSB order did not take into consideration the regional plan for the area, in which people had explicitly expressed opposition to commercial wind.
The certificate of public good was issued as a conditional use.
Kearns said UPC has every intention of complying with the 32 conditions of the PSB certificate of public good.
Meanwhile, commercial wind power in the Northeast Kingdom remains contentious on all sorts of grounds.
In Barton, some are so wary they they're trying to change the town plan to ban commercial and industrial wind entirely.
On a state level, however, the Vermont Public Service Department found that most people favored wind as a renewable source of energy so much so that they would be willing to have a turbine within sight.
It's a risk for UPC to invest in a project, Kearns said, but he believes the PSB decision will be upheld, and UPC plans to proceed accordingly.
|
Reader Comments
Posted: Monday, February 04, 2008
Article comment by:
Althea Tennison
UPC has been very fair and seem to have cooperated at every step of the way - if I remember correctly they changed the number of turbines, moved turbines out of sutton, moved them away from houses at hardscrabble mountain, made an agreement with the state to preserve bear habitat, agreed to sell all power within Vermont and now are agreeing to comply with all of our state's regulatory demands. We are in terrible need of renewable energy projects such as this one. It seems that no amount of effort, money or cooperation on the part of the renewable energy folks will please some people, and they spend their time trying to ruin it for the rest of us.
Posted: Saturday, February 02, 2008
Article comment by:
Martha Thacker
The wind farm that UPC built in Mars Hill, ME. never passed the legal noise level test. Despite the fact that UPC did not even do the test accurately. UPC was sued by Surplec out of Canada for non payment of a transformer. In court, UPC said the transformer was non merchantable. It was still used..and as far as I know never paid for.
|
Article Comment Submission Form
|
|
|
|
|
|
© The Caledonian-Record News 2009-2010
The Caledonian-Record,
190 Federal St., P.O. Box 8, St. Johnsbury, VT 05819 - 802-748-8121
|
|
|
