What we have learned is that no matter how well protected you think
you are by local planning, the future of your community is in someone
else's hands. Or, rather, three peoples' hands.
The Public Service Board (PSB) has authority over new electricity
generation proposals, which are governed by Section 248 (not Act 248 as
many people mistakenly call it). Section 248 contains provisions that
consider the substantive criteria of Act 250 and also town plan
language. Town votes are considered by the PSB, too. However, the PSB
has the ability to determine that the "public benefit" of the power to
be generated trumps everything else.
A recent example is the PSB's split decision on Iberdrola's Deerfield
wind project, proposed for federal land with prime bear habitat. Two of
the three board members found that the "public benefit" to the New
England region (not specifically to Vermont) trumped the genetically
distinct bear population that Vermont Fish & Wildlife biologists and
the Vermont Natural Resources Council strongly defended.
PUBLIC BENEFIT TEST
The PSB found that the impacts on the bear population would be "unduly
adverse," a finding that would have resulted in denial under Act 250.
But Section 248's "public benefit" test outweighs everything else. That
includes impacts to bears, bats, birds, aesthetics, natural resources,
town votes and Town Plans.
Nevertheless, the best defense against inappropriate development in your
community is a technically solid Town Plan and, if possible, a town
vote.
It is important for towns to update their plans to address new
technologies such as cell towers and now wind turbines and fields of
solar panels. To be considered in regulatory proceedings, those plans
must articulate a clearly written community standard, which Waitsfield
has.
Town Plans have the benefit of being developed over weeks and months,
with many public meetings and opportunities for discussion. This process
usually results in a document that most people in town understand and
support.
Townwide votes, on the other hand, can divide towns.
UPDATE TOWN PLAN
We have seen both examples in the last year. In Ira, the planning
commission worked to update its town plan, meetings were well publicized
and town plan language created a clearly written community standard. It
was adopted by the select board and affirmed by a vote at Town Meeting.
Ira was, for the most part, spared the divisiveness that usually occurs
with these big wind projects.
Contrast that with Lowell, where the developer, Green Mountain Power
(GMP), spent a year paying locals and staff who met people individually
in their homes, registering and signing up absentee voters. There were
few opportunities for residents to compare notes and share concerns and
questions. While negotiating behind closed doors with the Lowell Select
Board, GMP engaged in a full-blown public relations campaign that
skirted disclosure under state election laws. The result of GMP's
yearlong sales job in Lowell is a deeply divided community.
In Waitsfield, it is our understanding that Citizens Energy is planning
to follow GMP's method, which is pretty much guaranteed to create
exactly the sort of tensions that Vermonters for a Clean Environment
(VCE) has been working to help communities avoid.
ANOTHER WAY?
Is there another, better way to develop new renewable energy projects? We think there is.
First, energy proposals with serious local and regional impacts should
be reviewed by Act 250. The Act 250 District Commission process excels
at identifying stakeholders and coordinating hearings in which the
public can participate in a more meaningful way than in the extremely
expensive and litigious Section 248 process run by the PSB. Local
impacts are heard and considered. The vague "public benefit" loophole
gets closed.
Second, the review process should involve stakeholders from the
beginning. VCE has worked with community groups, businesses and state
regulators to bring people together to agree on experts to hire. This
process, which is not outcome-based, can save everyone money, empower
residents, build relationships and create a healthier community. We have
seen the stakeholder process succeed often enough to think it should be
mandatory for large projects that have major local or regional impacts
(such as quarries, large farms, large groundwater withdrawals and
renewable energy projects), prior to bringing in the lawyers to put on
their contested regulatory cases.
NEW SYSTEM NEEDED
The new energy sources we need now are very different than the ones that
the PSB was designed to regulate. The world of energy is entering the
21st century, and the regulatory system should as well. We need a new
system, one focused not just on prices and the grid but on community and
environmental impacts, to allow new projects and Vermont communities to
both succeed.
We do not need to sacrifice what we have to get what we need. By working
together, we can build new renewable energy projects. In fact, it may
be the only way anything will get built.
@BLURB = Annette Smith of Danby is director of Vermonters for a Clean
Environment. VCE has been working with citizens in Vermont who live in
communities, including Waitsfield, impacted by big wind power proposals.
