Lowell Mountain decision tragically flawed

link: http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2011/06/08/lowell-mountain-decision-tragically-flawed/

Over 40 years ago Vermonters began to build the framework for progressive environmental policy. We recognized we lived in a unique place, that our landscape was our economic heartbeat and that we needed to protect it. A recent Travel and Tourism survey confirms this is as true today as it was 40 years ago.

Who would have thought that an option to generate renewable energy could jeopardize legendary environmental policy efforts that resulted in: The billboard bill, the bottle bill, Act 250, upland streams protection, a Rivers Bill, tougher water quality standards, tighter definitions of critical wildlife habitat and an array of wetlands protections? These were good for trout, bobcats, warblers, deer, moose, bear, other wildlife species–and humans.

On May 31, the Public Service Board ignored much of this policy intent, and approved a “Certificate of Public Good” for what, arguably, will be Vermont’s largest construction project since the interstate. That is, Green Mountain Power’s proposed project to install 21 industrial wind turbines on 3.2 miles of the 450 million year old Lowell Mountains ridgeline. Their decision will allow for the destruction of an iconic, intact, healthy, montane ecosystem for “the public good,” the statutory definition of which few Vermonters fully grasp.

By issuing this certificate, the PSB has determined that it is “in the public good” to reorder the hydrology of the mountains, speeding erosion on steep slopes with thin soils and likely increasing downslope flows. They have decided that eliminating an important, high-quality feeding area for black bears is acceptable since the Agency of Natural Resources, under direct pressure from the governor, made a deal with Green Mountain Power to “mitigate” the loss of high quality habitat by guaranteeing protection of an area of lesser quality.

This reordering of our environmental priorities is designed to assure a “dependable” supply of renewable electricity as directed by the legislature. It is motivated by flawed policy, unsupported by the most recent federal research data, and also by the availability of your money in the form of federal subsidies. The latter helps guarantee an estimated 9 percent return for project investors, Gaz Metro in Montreal, Canada, GMP’s parent company.

The first rule of effective climate change action is to protect intact and functioning ecosystems. They are the first and most effective barriers to disruptions caused by climate change. Maintain vegetative diversity, keep water courses, especially those at higher altitudes shaded, do not disturb soils. Forested mountains do all of this with astonishing success. If this project is built, a functionally intact montane system would be chopped up by seven miles of roadways and site access that are, in places, wider than Interstate 89 (both lanes). The project would result in more than 160 acres of clearcuts. In order to build a road to install and service 450 foot tall turbines (more than a 40 story building), the ridgeline profile would have to be altered by blasting off peaks and filling in low spots. Bobcat, a species of particular concern in Vermont use these ledge-prone areas as nurseries. And even more intriguing, the blasting will open serpentine rock extrusions on the ridgeline that may be loaded with toxic metals.

The development of renewable resources is a fine goal. However, in Vermont, renewable resources to generate electricity will do little if anything to limit greenhouse gases. (There is still heated debate about this.)

What we do know is that more than 90 percent of Vermont’s greenhouse gases come from the burning of transportation (driving) and home heating fuels. When one digs deeper into the complex nature of renewable energy and technological advances, it becomes readily apparent that erecting industrial turbines on mountains is the least desirable option for Vermont, especially if the ultimate goal is greenhouse gas reduction. And there are options.

At the top of the list is the estimated 25 percent of our energy needs that can be met by efficiency. The cheapest kilowatt is the one you never need to generate. Until we have scavenged every possible kilowatt through efficiency we have no right to disturb the mountains and undo their contribution to our economic and environmental well-being.

What I have learned in the past year is that Vermont’s permitting process for siting industrial turbines on ridgelines is outrageously lopsided in favor of the developer with their legions of lawyers and expert witnesses. And when the governor co-opts the Agency of Natural Resources, forcing them into a deal with the developer, it makes one ask, “Who’s protecting our public trust resources?”

It short, federal and state renewable energy policy is tragically flawed as a strategy to ease the effects of climate change. In Vermont we are squandering our signature economic units: our mountains and ridgelines, for a purported “public good” based on that flawed policy. Until the public demands a change it will remain that way, definitely not “in the public good.”

Steve Wright is the former commissioner of the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>