The environmental impacts of windpower development in Vermont: A policy analyses
In the spring of 1996, construction of a six-megawatt wind power facility commenced on a mountain ridge in the town of Searsburgh in southern Vermont. While this process marked the beginning of physical development on the ridge, Green Mountain Power Corporation (GMP) had been planning the process fo...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Language: | unknown |
| Published: |
2018
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/570049 https://www.osti.gov/biblio/570049 |
| Summary: | In the spring of 1996, construction of a six-megawatt wind power facility commenced on a mountain ridge in the town of Searsburgh in southern Vermont. While this process marked the beginning of physical development on the ridge, Green Mountain Power Corporation (GMP) had been planning the process for over 25 years. From wind speed data collection in 1971, to site selection, and environmental studies still ongoing, GMP has sought to increase their renewable energy portfolio by bringing wind power to the state of Vermont. While on the surface, wind power appears to be relatively pollution free, producing no emissions, it should be noted that there are environmental impacts associated with wind power and these would have to be addressed before any substantial development could occur. But how would this happen in Vermont? Power generating facilities are not subject to the Act 250 process; rather they require certification from the Public Service Board (P.S.B.). As the project progressed, questions arose over just how the process would adequately address the environmental impacts associated with developing a remote ridge in southern Vermont. In preparing for and participating in the certification process, GMP identified several environmental impact issues in need of investigation. GMP initiated studies in several fields and hired consultants to investigate these issues with the hope that they would not serve as an impediment to their project. Preliminary analysis revealed the need for in-depth studies in four specific impact areas, including aesthetics, critical wildlife habitat, noise and avian studies. While all participants in the process do not share the same concerns, different stakeholders have raised enough questions to justify a critical look at the certification process. |
|---|