Frustrating but all-too-real situation. I think a possible solution is ownership models that allow these homeowners to co-own these solar/generation assets. This would mean that when looking out at a solar farm or wind turbine, individuals would see something helping pay off their mortgage or save for retirement, rather than an "eyesore" that is owned by a private entity. The property itself could even be tied to the co-ownership of the system to help address the property value argument.
Michigan Successfully Uses Renewable Energy Farm Revenue To Support Schools.
Such revenue lowers the need for local property taxes to fund public schools. That type of plan and tradeoff could likely get statewide support on a referendum. I know if someone had a plan to lower my property taxes plus promote renewable energy ... that would be a WIN WIN situation which would be hard to say no to.
Perhaps a similar strategy to Support Schools & Lower Property Taxes could be used in Vermont to speed the 'in-state' transition for smaller 'community sized' solar and wind farms as Mr. Thomas Hand advocates for. I think that with an approach like this there would be widespread 'majority' community support because such an approach is for the common good.
The neighbors had two issues, one was aesthetics but the other was equally or more important and that is how often that field, the road between their homes and the solar array site, and their homes flood. The week before the PUC site visit they had another flood, and sediment was on the field where the screening trees and fencing were proposed. Owning the project or having any buy-in would not be relevant in this specific location. The focus on aesthetics is minimizing the other very serious problem this site presents for a solar electric generation project.
Annette, Flooding is a regulated concern in VT. This is why buildings and solar arrays are required to hire engineers who produced stamped plans, which the VT Rivers program has to review and approve prior to the issuance of a permit to build in an area like this. Incidentally one of the neighbors has a ground mounted solar array that is ~1ft off the ground. Its survived all the floods. The array proposed for the field would have been 3ft off the ground. Flooding is a concern on many sites, this site is not unique. We can engineer arrays to deal with the minor flooding this site would have encountered.
Your plans addressed the solar array itself. Your engineers did not address the fencing and, most importantly, the screening trees. There is no way they would survive the extensive flooding that site experiences, especially the winter floods. This is just common sense.
One change that is needed is for developers to engage with the local community, including neighbors. The neighbors of this site are very reasonable, mostly working people who are providing valuable services to a town that is very expensive to live in. This happens to have been a neighborhood specifically built for people who work in the town. Instead of first finding out if there are stumbling blocks for the neighbors, the developers do the usual sales pitch to town boards. Neighbors get less time and don't feel heard. Because they aren't. They're called names like NIMBYs and told that their concerns don't matter. Just like the fossil fuel industry.
We participated in 6 public meetings on this project prior to applying to the PUC. Many of the neighbors who opposed the project were there and spoke to their elected representatives in town government. If that isn't "engagement with the local community" I don't know what is.
This idea that developers shouldn't approach towns, which in net metering cases, often have veto power over a project is just plain bonkers. If a developer needs approval from a town... they need to approach the town and go through public meetings. The idea that they should approach the neighbors in some separate doesn't make any sense.
People spoke but they feel they were not heard. Town government is often challenging. My town is currently hostile to the public, won't allow remote access, removed remote access via a vote on an unwarned agenda item. Especially during this pandemic, outreach specifically to neighbors, aside from whatever transpires at a town meeting, is always wise when proposing any kind of development. Being a good neighbor should be the first step. When you encounter neighbors with issues, talk to them and understand what the issues are, and make sure they are heard. I have no doubt these neighbors could have explained the flooding concerns in a way that would have given you pause, if you were willing to listen.
In the early 2000s when VCE was formed and we were dealing with gas power plants and pipelines (where were you then, Bill, Thomas and family?) FERC held several meetings around the country, the first was in Albany. It was about facilitating natural gas pipelines. I attended, expecting industry sales pitches. Instead, it was FERC reading the pipeline companies the riot act for disrupting communities. People from Maine, New York and other states were on panels discussing what happened to them, and there were presentations and discussions about different approaches. Some pipeline companies were paying people to come to scoping meetings. A PR consultant had a memorable graph, it showed what the companies were doing putting little effort up front leading to spending a lot of money on litigation at the back end, and then a second graph showing the benefits of putting a lot of resources into initial outreach, which greatly diminished litigation at the end.
A decade later, the DOE sponsored a program at Harvard Law School's Alternative Dispute Resolution center, about facilitating wind energy development in New England. I attended, again with skepticism, expecting three days of sales pitches. Instead, it brought together wind developers, regulators and community leaders, almost all of whom wanted wind, to teach them how to do community-based stakeholder processes because DOE had recognized that the wind guys were upsetting communities and were not going to meet goals if they continued the way they were. Before and after that three-day workshop I asked wind developers to please do it different and work with communities, and they all said "oh yes, we're all about community" and then they proceeded as usual with the usual paid experts that minimized the impacts and required communities to hire their own experts and duke it out in the regulatory process.
Sounds like the solar industry needs some lessons in how to work with people. It is nothing to fear, and there is a lot to gain.
When I look at solar arrays or wind turbines, I see things of beauty. The beauty of humanity using innovation and ingenuity in confronting an existential crisis. Clean energy constructions are acknowledgment of the damage that has been done by living an extractive, excessive lifestyle. Of all the human-made utilitarian structures we must look at in our environment, these would not be the ones I would find objectionable. Just like a viewer who prefers a Monet to a Pollack, it's time to educate our senses and broaden our appreciation.
Faced similar pushback in the Home Satellite TV Industry when 'overly neighborly HOAs' and others objected to a homeowner installing a satellite dish because of "aesthetic reasons".
We took care of that with Federal Rules administered by the FCC which prohibits governmental and nongovernmental restrictions on satellite dishes.
Suggest that those in the Climate Justice movement do something similar on a nationwide basis in regards to Solar Panels and Solar Farms.
Start with Senator Sanders and House Reps in Vermont and then get buy in from others including trade groups and solar panel installers.
** Subject to certain exceptions, the OTARD Rule prohibits governmental and
nongovernmental restrictions that impair the ability of antenna users to install, maintain, or use over-the-air-reception device to receive satellite signals."
Oh sure, that's what we need, run roughshod over people just like the telecom industry that got legislation passed that violates the First Amendment so people can't even talk about health concerns in public meetings. Yes, those darn neighbors just need to shut up, and the government needs legislation to make sure they don't have a voice. Is this really how you want to do energy transformation?
In our bit o' th' woods, two promising solar arrays that would have earned a town and a county handsome revenues were shot down for similar reasons, and also because they could be seen from some trails neighbors frequented. (The land was publicly owned.) There are a half dozen walkable parks within 5 miles, but these are across the street. This happened despite urging by those in favor, including testimony I gave, emphasizing the climate emergency, emphasizing that it was continuing the favoritism of white suburbs over poorer income areas, emphasizing that these would at least be controlled by the town and county rather than being some mega-array constructed and paid for by a manufacturer who wanted the energy for their factory.
The bit about energy and white suburbs .... Such suburbs consume a lot of electricity. Is it that unfair to insist that some of their land be used to generate this electricity rather than pushing some natural gas combined cycle monstrosity onto a community which hasn't the influence or time to oppose it?
The most outrageous cut, worth a journalist investigating, is that a local Representative Paul McMurtry (Democrat), tucked in $25,000 of funding in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts budget solely for the purpose of paying legal fees and other support to a group which opposed building one of the solar arrays. I wrote to the Massachusetts EEOR (energy and environment unit) pointing out the conflict between this and the Commonwealth's objectives consistent with its Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA) and its 2021 update. Same to Governor Baker. Not a peep back.
I understand that Hydro Quebec is a serious source of methane and CO2 as well as destroying local ecology. As such, the claim that Vermont's electricity is "clean" and "renewable" is cast into doubt.
Further, Green Mountain Power purchases RECs from HQ at a steep discount and sells the RECs derived from Vermont solar projects at a several hundred percent markup. This is because Vermont is the only New England state which allows the purchase of HQ RECs by utilities.
these are true, i think--i didn't delve deeply into them because they i was concentrating on the solar stuff, but Thomas Hand indicates that when you turn on a lightbulb in VT, 25% of the power may still be coming from the New England power pool, ie lots of gas
The PUC gets reports on the RECs, write to the clerk and ask. All big wind RECs are sold out of state. All net-metered solar RECs that the utility owns are used to meet the Tier 2 standard of the Renewable Energy Standard, and some Standard Offer contract RECs are also used to meeting Tier 2 (which requires in-state renewables and retiring the RECs) but then the rest are sold out of state, the utilities buy lower grade but still renewable RECS (like old hydro dams) and H-Q non-RECs called environmental attributes to claim their 100% renewable status. BED gets no wind or biomass renewable energy, it sells all those RECs, not sure how much of the solar they sell, but it's all very misleading when BED claims it gets 100% renewable energy and is powered by wind, solar and biomass. Yes, the energy is from wind, solar and biomass (which is not legitimately renewable) but it cannot be claimed to be renewable, those attributes got sold to Mass. and Ct.
Here in rural central NY, no complaints about aesthetics. The cynicism stems from all of the tax-avoidance slight-of-hand that solar projects require in order to be deemed viable investment vehicles here at 43N latitude, in an area of almost constant overcast skies. One local project is advertised as providing 12MW to the grid, which is possible only for a few hours on June 20th, providing there are no clouds. So in this area, solar panel farms are built not to generate low-carbon energy but rather to generate refundable tax credits, which are sold at a discount to mega corporations with huge tax liabilities. Solar projects are also negotiating 30-year payment-in-lieu-of-tax agreements that set property taxes at a small fraction of what they would be on a similar sized new construction for carbon-fueled utilities. In order to retain their existing ag exemptions, farmers who host solar projects deploy sheep to keep down the grass and weeds between the rows of panels, and then market a minimal amount of meat/wool so that the land is still considered to be in agricultural production. There's got to be a better way.
Bill you should submit this to the Manchester Journal! One small correction. The town issued no permits for the project. It’s only jurisdiction was to designate the site as a “preferred site” after those six public meetings you referenced.
Solar farms raise local temperatures from the fact they are metal and dark glass, which absorb heat from the sun. Nearby homeowners can expect to need to water more to keep vegetation alive and use more air conditioning to keep their homes cool. This may not be much of an issue in Vermont but it certainly is an issue in other areas.
Solar arrays are ugly, Vermont protects its natural venues aggressively, and solar energy is not very useful in achieving the target goal of influencing worldwide CO2 targets. Only dramatic reductions by China and India in current and planned increase usage would make any difference. And all this assumes that CO2 reduction is somehow useful in limiting the negative effects of the apparently mostly natural process of long term changes in climate. The fact is that even if CO2 helps create the very small increases in world temperatures that are of themselves normal multi-century temp variation, it is clearly and provingly significantly improving plant productivity resulting in a much greener and productive world. Solar arrays are a moral statement, not useful to the targeted issue.
Have any wind and solar advocates thought things through beyond the knee-jerk stage? Do you want firm power, or power only at the whim of the weather? Have you calculated how much storage would be necessary?
Others have. At least 400 watt hours' storage per average watt of demand in all of England and Scotland (Euan Mearns). Same for Texas (Norman Rogers). 400-800 for North America (Shaner et al).
How much it would cost?
A commonly-used number is that if today's American energy economy were all electric, demand would be 1,700 GWe. Looking in Tesla's catalog for prices and reliability, and doing really simple arithmetic, the conclusion is that storage for firm power would cost ONLY FOUR TIMES TOTAL USA GDP EVERY YEAR!
Wind and solar are not going to solve the "carbon problem." So why are they being pushed so hard? Who benefits? Certainly not the climate, or the neighbors of the projects.
I direct readers to the commentary of Brooke Dingledine (below), a practicing civil and criminal law attorney who is arguably one of the most knowledgeable, if not the most knowledgeable attorneys regarding Vermont utility law. Bill McKibben is neither a scientist, engineer, hydrogeologist or attorney, but an English Professor who tends to leave out the critical facts and context that is necessary to fully understand the story whenever he rails against people would dare disagree with him. Quite apparently, (once again) Bill doesn't let the facts get in the way of his misleading and polarizing assault on good Vermonters, as Ms. Dingledine's clarifying response below makes so clear. I find it sometimes hard to believe that Bill is the son of a minister who should have been taught by his parents that we need to work together, be compassionate and embrace differences of opinion. Its time we stop this us v. them name calling. Here is another point in fact that the uninformed zealots continue to leave out that might be helpful in understanding the real story: in order to be provided legal standing as a party to either an Act 250 or Public Utility Commission proceeding, one must establish that they have an "affected interest". One of the few ways to prove that a person has an affected interest is to be a direct adjoiner or neighbor to a proposed development project. I bring this up as it is codified in Vermont law that in order to participate as a legal party in proceedings before these tribunals, the project must be "in my backyard" otherwise they would be denied standing. Bill McKibben, would you please do us Vermonters a favor, do your research, and provide all the facts next time you spout off, attacking our friends and neighbors who care about our planet just as much as you do, but come at environmental protection from a different approach than you do? Please end the divisiveness, god knows we have seen enough of it since 2016. It does the cause of saving our planet from the death spiral it is most assuredly on, no good when we use the divisive approach used in your misleading summary of the process leading up this this project's denial.
A. Many readers here favor the opinions of persons who 'openly and transparently' advocate for renewable energy solutions and try to educate us. One such person is Bill McKibben. However Mr. Brabant, attacking Bill because he is a son of a Methodist Minister and is a Methodist is beyond the pale. We wish more churches and their leaders (shorturl.at/fmFGW) would advocate for Climate Crisis solutions as Bill does. His record of getting institutions to divest from fossil fuel investments is impressive at over $15 trillion.
B. I agree as you said: "that we need to work together, be compassionate and embrace differences of opinion" But upfront, those providing comments here need do so 'openly and transparently'
C. Perhaps you can be more open and transparent on who you are and who is paying you. Is the following accurate?
John Brabant (a paid anti-renewable energy crusader):
(2016-2021) Director Regulatory Affairs: VCE - VERMONTERS FOR A CLEAN ENVIRONMENT*
(1988-2013) Environmental Analyst: VERMONT AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES
* The other VCE employee of this 501c3 is Annete Smith**. Brabant in 2018 was paid $45K
Actually, I'm not sure how Mr. Brabant got the idea my Dad was a minister--he was a business journalist, though a very good man, and serious about church in his way. And I do think we need to work together--that's why I didn't demonize anyone in the article. I'm glad for everyone's useful reactions. On we go.
Bill knows who I am. We have spoken and privately corresponded with one another. Clearly you don't know who I am by your labeling me. Not anti-renewable by any means, but an old-school environmentalist and scientist that considers all environmental and societal factors. Having been an environmental regulator, acting in a neutral "just the facts" capacity, I have been beaten on by both developers and environmentalists, mostly developers for being unwilling to inject political bias into my decision-making. Have stood against attempts at illegal rigging of the permitting process by both Democratic and Republican governors here in Vermont. For doing so, I put my job on the line time and again and have been lauded and supported by every major Vermont environmental organization who came to my defense at the Vermont legislature. In my present work context, I work on environmental issues of all matter, including protecting water quality and Vermont's development control and environmental protection laws from assault. And regarding my hating on Bill because he is a Methodist is not what I did and in point of fact, I was raised in the Methodist Church.
As I said, you don't know me George Jones. Longtime Vermonters and Vermont environmentalists do, as I have fought many battles working shoulder to shoulder with them. I suspect you don't live here in Vermont or have not lived here very long or your reply would have been very different. Lastly, I must say, I really like your name. I had an uncle George Jones who I was very close to and I am a huge fan of the late country singer, George Jones. I think next time, rather than post my concerns on a blog, I will correspond directly with Bill. Much more productive use of his and my time. Not really into all of this hyperbolic blog stuff. Have a nice day.
John, thanks for your words and dialogue. Methodist here also and glad you like the name. Happy to see that you and Mr. Hand have a dialogue going. I am sure that many on this blog have learned more about clean energy needs in Vermont and around the Globe to wean ourselves from fossil fuels toward more renewable energy sources for the greater good. Cheers.
George. We are in a tough spot. One place Bill and I disagree ( at least publicly) is the degree of the problem, both the atmospheric CO2 problem as well as the entire realm of problems related to our consumptive lifestyles and near 8 billion human population. My view is that it is orders of magnitude worse than it is being portrayed, and our, and the planet's situation is quite dire. Bill is the eternal optimist, I tend differently. We are not going to get through this without major changes in our lifestyles. Renewables will not solve this dilemma, if fully rolled out, they may reduce the rate of the death spiral to some degree, but it will continue downward. Something that no one discusses, NO ONE, is how much longer will the natural systems that have sustained our atmospheric O2 levels at 20.8% by volume since recorded time. These life sustaining systems are dying, partly due to the rise of CO2, but also due to many other human induced factors. I fully expect that we will in the very near future be worried more about crashing atmospheric O2 levels than CO2, despite rising CO2s own very serious consequences. My mission has to get all of us to stop this behavior of focusing on one "symptom" of a much larger catastrophe in the making, that is total collapse of the planet's natural systems to the point that we won't be able reliably expect to breath air that will sustain us. Working on renewables is important, but we need to not be so zealous in our work that we take out the other intact forest and ocean ecosystems that sustain us and every living creature on the planet. I will leave you and the other readers with a link to the atmospheric O2 levels graph developed from data collected from the Scripts Institute since the early - mid 1990s. It isn't looking good. We need to put our collective heads together and work toward a broader set of actions beyond just renewables. Consumption and an unsustainable human population is the enemy Atmospheric carbon is but one symptom of a much larger problem.
Please recognize that Oxygen/O2 IS NOT a heat-trapping greenhouse gas.
I am not discounting the need for lifestyle changes and I hope you and others are not discounting the need to speed up the move to renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, hydro and perhaps safe and small scale nuclear energy power plants such as Bill Gates and others are investing in.
One part of my past life was at a senior position in a major US electric utility. That utility has since decommissioned their dirty coal fired power plants. The air pollution from such power plants is deadly.
I admit that I am not a scientific expert on global atmospheric oxygen levels ... which you are right are about 21% ... but you failed to mention this is at sea level.
You also failed to clearly state that atmospheric oxygen levels have varied from a low of 10 percent to a high of 35 percent over the last 540 million years or so.
In high altitude places where I have been, like La Paz Bolivia at about 13,500 ft., breathing in enough oxygen is more difficult with a 13% O2 level until you become acclimated (avg. about 1 to 2 weeks).
Most of us living at or near sea level have about 4.5 million red blood cells, which capture oxygen for the body`s use. La Paz`s indigenous residents have about 5.5 million red blood cells. As mentioned, it takes a few weeks for the body to produce the additional 1 million red blood cells ( not the 5G kind :-} ).
John, I seriously believe the more pressing issue today is limiting greenhouse gas levels versus an over worry on global oxygen levels. That stance is well support in the scientific community including by a recognized PhD scientist (Chris Poulsen) in this area:
"But Poulsen cautions that the study has no affect on what is known about Earth’s current climate. The planet’s climate is changing today because levels of GREENHOUSE GASES such as carbon dioxide and methane are rising dramatically—OXYGEN ISN'T A FACTOR."
“Oxygen levels are dropping today but at a very slow rate, approximately tens of parts per million per year," he says. "This rate is much too slow to affect climate in the modern world.”
The very large issue on Climate Change is what I term as a "GeoArbitrage Scenario". Because of hotter temps, drought, crop failures etc. there could be millions of persons migrating from hotter tropic areas like Central America, Florida, etc. to northern latitude 'Climate Haven' places such as Canada, Vermont, Michigan etc.
Over the past 100 years the ANNUAL average CONUS warming was about 2.0F. Vermont far exceeds this ANNUAL warming with 2.7F (6th in the CONUS). With 2.7F of warming, Vermont is right at the Paris Climate Agreement limit of 2.7F and I think that Vermonters would want to act better in the greater 'Public Interest' to show other Americans you - Bill - Bernie - etc. are trying hard to phase in more renewable energy sources.
John, probably worth noting that one of the folks opposing this project is not a neighbor. He lives ~1 mile away and opposed the project because he drives by the project on the way to work. Some of the commentators opposing the project don't even live in the same town!
Hey Thomas. Quick reply. I would seriously consider what Brooke Dingledine has posted. I find life's best lessons are some of the most painful, as this one has likely been for you. You come from a great family that is very community minded as Bill has alluded to. I think the takeaway from this experience should be (1) that its best to engage with neighbors to projects early on; (2) steer clear of floodplains, floodways, wetlands, critical wildlife habitat and large forest blocks (core forests),(3) locate off prime ag land and steer clear from heritage farms; better to locate where the soils are marginal and the project will not damage the integrity or viability of the farm going forward. Engaging with neighbors, and most importantly those who have real concerns early on and working out those concerns where possible will guarantee you the greatest success with the least stress and cost in the long run. Best to you. Say hi to your dad for me.
Hi John, Thanks for your kind words. Here is the thing, to produce the power needed for VT get off fossil fuels a town the size of Manchester needs 100-150 acres of solar in addition to other forms of renewables. If solar avoids of all the areas you highlight its going to be next to impossible to build the amount of renewable energy needed to get off fossil fuels. It very likely impossible to build all the renewable energy needed and make it completely invisible.
The fact remains that the site you chose is not a good site for solar, and it does affect some neighbors negatively. The PUC has denied a renewable energy project for the same reason, shocking and offensive to the average person, and that was only one part-time neighbor, not an entire housing development.
Frustrating but all-too-real situation. I think a possible solution is ownership models that allow these homeowners to co-own these solar/generation assets. This would mean that when looking out at a solar farm or wind turbine, individuals would see something helping pay off their mortgage or save for retirement, rather than an "eyesore" that is owned by a private entity. The property itself could even be tied to the co-ownership of the system to help address the property value argument.
yes, this is one way that Denmark saw such widespread renewable adoption.
Michigan Successfully Uses Renewable Energy Farm Revenue To Support Schools.
Such revenue lowers the need for local property taxes to fund public schools. That type of plan and tradeoff could likely get statewide support on a referendum. I know if someone had a plan to lower my property taxes plus promote renewable energy ... that would be a WIN WIN situation which would be hard to say no to.
Perhaps a similar strategy to Support Schools & Lower Property Taxes could be used in Vermont to speed the 'in-state' transition for smaller 'community sized' solar and wind farms as Mr. Thomas Hand advocates for. I think that with an approach like this there would be widespread 'majority' community support because such an approach is for the common good.
See: https://checksandbalancesproject.org/how-michigan-uses-wind-farm-revenue-to-support-schools/
See: https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2021/04/michigan-lawmakers-introduce-bipartisan-community-solar-legislation/
The neighbors had two issues, one was aesthetics but the other was equally or more important and that is how often that field, the road between their homes and the solar array site, and their homes flood. The week before the PUC site visit they had another flood, and sediment was on the field where the screening trees and fencing were proposed. Owning the project or having any buy-in would not be relevant in this specific location. The focus on aesthetics is minimizing the other very serious problem this site presents for a solar electric generation project.
Annette, Flooding is a regulated concern in VT. This is why buildings and solar arrays are required to hire engineers who produced stamped plans, which the VT Rivers program has to review and approve prior to the issuance of a permit to build in an area like this. Incidentally one of the neighbors has a ground mounted solar array that is ~1ft off the ground. Its survived all the floods. The array proposed for the field would have been 3ft off the ground. Flooding is a concern on many sites, this site is not unique. We can engineer arrays to deal with the minor flooding this site would have encountered.
Your plans addressed the solar array itself. Your engineers did not address the fencing and, most importantly, the screening trees. There is no way they would survive the extensive flooding that site experiences, especially the winter floods. This is just common sense.
Thanks for that insight Annette - you flag an important challenge.
Bill, so frustrating! We need to promote climate change literacy in our communities and schools so all can get beyond the NIMBY syndrome.
One change that is needed is for developers to engage with the local community, including neighbors. The neighbors of this site are very reasonable, mostly working people who are providing valuable services to a town that is very expensive to live in. This happens to have been a neighborhood specifically built for people who work in the town. Instead of first finding out if there are stumbling blocks for the neighbors, the developers do the usual sales pitch to town boards. Neighbors get less time and don't feel heard. Because they aren't. They're called names like NIMBYs and told that their concerns don't matter. Just like the fossil fuel industry.
We participated in 6 public meetings on this project prior to applying to the PUC. Many of the neighbors who opposed the project were there and spoke to their elected representatives in town government. If that isn't "engagement with the local community" I don't know what is.
This idea that developers shouldn't approach towns, which in net metering cases, often have veto power over a project is just plain bonkers. If a developer needs approval from a town... they need to approach the town and go through public meetings. The idea that they should approach the neighbors in some separate doesn't make any sense.
People spoke but they feel they were not heard. Town government is often challenging. My town is currently hostile to the public, won't allow remote access, removed remote access via a vote on an unwarned agenda item. Especially during this pandemic, outreach specifically to neighbors, aside from whatever transpires at a town meeting, is always wise when proposing any kind of development. Being a good neighbor should be the first step. When you encounter neighbors with issues, talk to them and understand what the issues are, and make sure they are heard. I have no doubt these neighbors could have explained the flooding concerns in a way that would have given you pause, if you were willing to listen.
In the early 2000s when VCE was formed and we were dealing with gas power plants and pipelines (where were you then, Bill, Thomas and family?) FERC held several meetings around the country, the first was in Albany. It was about facilitating natural gas pipelines. I attended, expecting industry sales pitches. Instead, it was FERC reading the pipeline companies the riot act for disrupting communities. People from Maine, New York and other states were on panels discussing what happened to them, and there were presentations and discussions about different approaches. Some pipeline companies were paying people to come to scoping meetings. A PR consultant had a memorable graph, it showed what the companies were doing putting little effort up front leading to spending a lot of money on litigation at the back end, and then a second graph showing the benefits of putting a lot of resources into initial outreach, which greatly diminished litigation at the end.
A decade later, the DOE sponsored a program at Harvard Law School's Alternative Dispute Resolution center, about facilitating wind energy development in New England. I attended, again with skepticism, expecting three days of sales pitches. Instead, it brought together wind developers, regulators and community leaders, almost all of whom wanted wind, to teach them how to do community-based stakeholder processes because DOE had recognized that the wind guys were upsetting communities and were not going to meet goals if they continued the way they were. Before and after that three-day workshop I asked wind developers to please do it different and work with communities, and they all said "oh yes, we're all about community" and then they proceeded as usual with the usual paid experts that minimized the impacts and required communities to hire their own experts and duke it out in the regulatory process.
Sounds like the solar industry needs some lessons in how to work with people. It is nothing to fear, and there is a lot to gain.
When I look at solar arrays or wind turbines, I see things of beauty. The beauty of humanity using innovation and ingenuity in confronting an existential crisis. Clean energy constructions are acknowledgment of the damage that has been done by living an extractive, excessive lifestyle. Of all the human-made utilitarian structures we must look at in our environment, these would not be the ones I would find objectionable. Just like a viewer who prefers a Monet to a Pollack, it's time to educate our senses and broaden our appreciation.
that's how i've come to feel too--and you put it very beautifully
Right on Bill!
Faced similar pushback in the Home Satellite TV Industry when 'overly neighborly HOAs' and others objected to a homeowner installing a satellite dish because of "aesthetic reasons".
We took care of that with Federal Rules administered by the FCC which prohibits governmental and nongovernmental restrictions on satellite dishes.
Suggest that those in the Climate Justice movement do something similar on a nationwide basis in regards to Solar Panels and Solar Farms.
Start with Senator Sanders and House Reps in Vermont and then get buy in from others including trade groups and solar panel installers.
Here's a recent FCC ruling**: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-21-38A1.pdf
** Subject to certain exceptions, the OTARD Rule prohibits governmental and
nongovernmental restrictions that impair the ability of antenna users to install, maintain, or use over-the-air-reception device to receive satellite signals."
Oh sure, that's what we need, run roughshod over people just like the telecom industry that got legislation passed that violates the First Amendment so people can't even talk about health concerns in public meetings. Yes, those darn neighbors just need to shut up, and the government needs legislation to make sure they don't have a voice. Is this really how you want to do energy transformation?
Thanks for this perspective, Bill. Seems as if we should also be considering the viewpoints of the younger members of our population who will be left to deal with the mess the "adults in the room" have created. https://vtdigger.org/2021/05/06/iris-hsiang-equity-and-justice-are-key-issues-for-the-vermont-climate-council/
Sometimes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder... https://spark.adobe.com/page/xOQJbyObEPhAo/
well said!
In our bit o' th' woods, two promising solar arrays that would have earned a town and a county handsome revenues were shot down for similar reasons, and also because they could be seen from some trails neighbors frequented. (The land was publicly owned.) There are a half dozen walkable parks within 5 miles, but these are across the street. This happened despite urging by those in favor, including testimony I gave, emphasizing the climate emergency, emphasizing that it was continuing the favoritism of white suburbs over poorer income areas, emphasizing that these would at least be controlled by the town and county rather than being some mega-array constructed and paid for by a manufacturer who wanted the energy for their factory.
The bit about energy and white suburbs .... Such suburbs consume a lot of electricity. Is it that unfair to insist that some of their land be used to generate this electricity rather than pushing some natural gas combined cycle monstrosity onto a community which hasn't the influence or time to oppose it?
The most outrageous cut, worth a journalist investigating, is that a local Representative Paul McMurtry (Democrat), tucked in $25,000 of funding in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts budget solely for the purpose of paying legal fees and other support to a group which opposed building one of the solar arrays. I wrote to the Massachusetts EEOR (energy and environment unit) pointing out the conflict between this and the Commonwealth's objectives consistent with its Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA) and its 2021 update. Same to Governor Baker. Not a peep back.
I understand that Hydro Quebec is a serious source of methane and CO2 as well as destroying local ecology. As such, the claim that Vermont's electricity is "clean" and "renewable" is cast into doubt.
Further, Green Mountain Power purchases RECs from HQ at a steep discount and sells the RECs derived from Vermont solar projects at a several hundred percent markup. This is because Vermont is the only New England state which allows the purchase of HQ RECs by utilities.
these are true, i think--i didn't delve deeply into them because they i was concentrating on the solar stuff, but Thomas Hand indicates that when you turn on a lightbulb in VT, 25% of the power may still be coming from the New England power pool, ie lots of gas
I have been trying to get referred sources for these claims. I haven't found them yet.
https://greenmountainpower.com/energy-mix/
This is greenwash. It does not acknowledge the methane and co2 emissions involved in "large hydro."
Agreed. Vermont's energy policy is almost all gimmicks.
email me and I'll send you the excel file from GMP. MHGsolar.com
please do. I don't have your email address.
The PUC gets reports on the RECs, write to the clerk and ask. All big wind RECs are sold out of state. All net-metered solar RECs that the utility owns are used to meet the Tier 2 standard of the Renewable Energy Standard, and some Standard Offer contract RECs are also used to meeting Tier 2 (which requires in-state renewables and retiring the RECs) but then the rest are sold out of state, the utilities buy lower grade but still renewable RECS (like old hydro dams) and H-Q non-RECs called environmental attributes to claim their 100% renewable status. BED gets no wind or biomass renewable energy, it sells all those RECs, not sure how much of the solar they sell, but it's all very misleading when BED claims it gets 100% renewable energy and is powered by wind, solar and biomass. Yes, the energy is from wind, solar and biomass (which is not legitimately renewable) but it cannot be claimed to be renewable, those attributes got sold to Mass. and Ct.
Here in rural central NY, no complaints about aesthetics. The cynicism stems from all of the tax-avoidance slight-of-hand that solar projects require in order to be deemed viable investment vehicles here at 43N latitude, in an area of almost constant overcast skies. One local project is advertised as providing 12MW to the grid, which is possible only for a few hours on June 20th, providing there are no clouds. So in this area, solar panel farms are built not to generate low-carbon energy but rather to generate refundable tax credits, which are sold at a discount to mega corporations with huge tax liabilities. Solar projects are also negotiating 30-year payment-in-lieu-of-tax agreements that set property taxes at a small fraction of what they would be on a similar sized new construction for carbon-fueled utilities. In order to retain their existing ag exemptions, farmers who host solar projects deploy sheep to keep down the grass and weeds between the rows of panels, and then market a minimal amount of meat/wool so that the land is still considered to be in agricultural production. There's got to be a better way.
Bill you should submit this to the Manchester Journal! One small correction. The town issued no permits for the project. It’s only jurisdiction was to designate the site as a “preferred site” after those six public meetings you referenced.
thank you for that!
Solar farms raise local temperatures from the fact they are metal and dark glass, which absorb heat from the sun. Nearby homeowners can expect to need to water more to keep vegetation alive and use more air conditioning to keep their homes cool. This may not be much of an issue in Vermont but it certainly is an issue in other areas.
Solar arrays are ugly, Vermont protects its natural venues aggressively, and solar energy is not very useful in achieving the target goal of influencing worldwide CO2 targets. Only dramatic reductions by China and India in current and planned increase usage would make any difference. And all this assumes that CO2 reduction is somehow useful in limiting the negative effects of the apparently mostly natural process of long term changes in climate. The fact is that even if CO2 helps create the very small increases in world temperatures that are of themselves normal multi-century temp variation, it is clearly and provingly significantly improving plant productivity resulting in a much greener and productive world. Solar arrays are a moral statement, not useful to the targeted issue.
Have any wind and solar advocates thought things through beyond the knee-jerk stage? Do you want firm power, or power only at the whim of the weather? Have you calculated how much storage would be necessary?
Others have. At least 400 watt hours' storage per average watt of demand in all of England and Scotland (Euan Mearns). Same for Texas (Norman Rogers). 400-800 for North America (Shaner et al).
How much it would cost?
A commonly-used number is that if today's American energy economy were all electric, demand would be 1,700 GWe. Looking in Tesla's catalog for prices and reliability, and doing really simple arithmetic, the conclusion is that storage for firm power would cost ONLY FOUR TIMES TOTAL USA GDP EVERY YEAR!
Wind and solar are not going to solve the "carbon problem." So why are they being pushed so hard? Who benefits? Certainly not the climate, or the neighbors of the projects.
No one from government is telling people that they must change. So scary and true. Thanks.
great post!
I direct readers to the commentary of Brooke Dingledine (below), a practicing civil and criminal law attorney who is arguably one of the most knowledgeable, if not the most knowledgeable attorneys regarding Vermont utility law. Bill McKibben is neither a scientist, engineer, hydrogeologist or attorney, but an English Professor who tends to leave out the critical facts and context that is necessary to fully understand the story whenever he rails against people would dare disagree with him. Quite apparently, (once again) Bill doesn't let the facts get in the way of his misleading and polarizing assault on good Vermonters, as Ms. Dingledine's clarifying response below makes so clear. I find it sometimes hard to believe that Bill is the son of a minister who should have been taught by his parents that we need to work together, be compassionate and embrace differences of opinion. Its time we stop this us v. them name calling. Here is another point in fact that the uninformed zealots continue to leave out that might be helpful in understanding the real story: in order to be provided legal standing as a party to either an Act 250 or Public Utility Commission proceeding, one must establish that they have an "affected interest". One of the few ways to prove that a person has an affected interest is to be a direct adjoiner or neighbor to a proposed development project. I bring this up as it is codified in Vermont law that in order to participate as a legal party in proceedings before these tribunals, the project must be "in my backyard" otherwise they would be denied standing. Bill McKibben, would you please do us Vermonters a favor, do your research, and provide all the facts next time you spout off, attacking our friends and neighbors who care about our planet just as much as you do, but come at environmental protection from a different approach than you do? Please end the divisiveness, god knows we have seen enough of it since 2016. It does the cause of saving our planet from the death spiral it is most assuredly on, no good when we use the divisive approach used in your misleading summary of the process leading up this this project's denial.
A. Many readers here favor the opinions of persons who 'openly and transparently' advocate for renewable energy solutions and try to educate us. One such person is Bill McKibben. However Mr. Brabant, attacking Bill because he is a son of a Methodist Minister and is a Methodist is beyond the pale. We wish more churches and their leaders (shorturl.at/fmFGW) would advocate for Climate Crisis solutions as Bill does. His record of getting institutions to divest from fossil fuel investments is impressive at over $15 trillion.
B. I agree as you said: "that we need to work together, be compassionate and embrace differences of opinion" But upfront, those providing comments here need do so 'openly and transparently'
C. Perhaps you can be more open and transparent on who you are and who is paying you. Is the following accurate?
John Brabant (a paid anti-renewable energy crusader):
(2016-2021) Director Regulatory Affairs: VCE - VERMONTERS FOR A CLEAN ENVIRONMENT*
(1988-2013) Environmental Analyst: VERMONT AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES
* The other VCE employee of this 501c3 is Annete Smith**. Brabant in 2018 was paid $45K
** https://vermontbiz.com/news/2021/september/16/sterling-moving-fossil-fuels-renewables-key-stopping-climate-change
Actually, I'm not sure how Mr. Brabant got the idea my Dad was a minister--he was a business journalist, though a very good man, and serious about church in his way. And I do think we need to work together--that's why I didn't demonize anyone in the article. I'm glad for everyone's useful reactions. On we go.
Bill knows who I am. We have spoken and privately corresponded with one another. Clearly you don't know who I am by your labeling me. Not anti-renewable by any means, but an old-school environmentalist and scientist that considers all environmental and societal factors. Having been an environmental regulator, acting in a neutral "just the facts" capacity, I have been beaten on by both developers and environmentalists, mostly developers for being unwilling to inject political bias into my decision-making. Have stood against attempts at illegal rigging of the permitting process by both Democratic and Republican governors here in Vermont. For doing so, I put my job on the line time and again and have been lauded and supported by every major Vermont environmental organization who came to my defense at the Vermont legislature. In my present work context, I work on environmental issues of all matter, including protecting water quality and Vermont's development control and environmental protection laws from assault. And regarding my hating on Bill because he is a Methodist is not what I did and in point of fact, I was raised in the Methodist Church.
As I said, you don't know me George Jones. Longtime Vermonters and Vermont environmentalists do, as I have fought many battles working shoulder to shoulder with them. I suspect you don't live here in Vermont or have not lived here very long or your reply would have been very different. Lastly, I must say, I really like your name. I had an uncle George Jones who I was very close to and I am a huge fan of the late country singer, George Jones. I think next time, rather than post my concerns on a blog, I will correspond directly with Bill. Much more productive use of his and my time. Not really into all of this hyperbolic blog stuff. Have a nice day.
John, thanks for your words and dialogue. Methodist here also and glad you like the name. Happy to see that you and Mr. Hand have a dialogue going. I am sure that many on this blog have learned more about clean energy needs in Vermont and around the Globe to wean ourselves from fossil fuels toward more renewable energy sources for the greater good. Cheers.
George. We are in a tough spot. One place Bill and I disagree ( at least publicly) is the degree of the problem, both the atmospheric CO2 problem as well as the entire realm of problems related to our consumptive lifestyles and near 8 billion human population. My view is that it is orders of magnitude worse than it is being portrayed, and our, and the planet's situation is quite dire. Bill is the eternal optimist, I tend differently. We are not going to get through this without major changes in our lifestyles. Renewables will not solve this dilemma, if fully rolled out, they may reduce the rate of the death spiral to some degree, but it will continue downward. Something that no one discusses, NO ONE, is how much longer will the natural systems that have sustained our atmospheric O2 levels at 20.8% by volume since recorded time. These life sustaining systems are dying, partly due to the rise of CO2, but also due to many other human induced factors. I fully expect that we will in the very near future be worried more about crashing atmospheric O2 levels than CO2, despite rising CO2s own very serious consequences. My mission has to get all of us to stop this behavior of focusing on one "symptom" of a much larger catastrophe in the making, that is total collapse of the planet's natural systems to the point that we won't be able reliably expect to breath air that will sustain us. Working on renewables is important, but we need to not be so zealous in our work that we take out the other intact forest and ocean ecosystems that sustain us and every living creature on the planet. I will leave you and the other readers with a link to the atmospheric O2 levels graph developed from data collected from the Scripts Institute since the early - mid 1990s. It isn't looking good. We need to put our collective heads together and work toward a broader set of actions beyond just renewables. Consumption and an unsustainable human population is the enemy Atmospheric carbon is but one symptom of a much larger problem.
Here's the link: https://www.oxygenlevels.org/
Please recognize that Oxygen/O2 IS NOT a heat-trapping greenhouse gas.
I am not discounting the need for lifestyle changes and I hope you and others are not discounting the need to speed up the move to renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, hydro and perhaps safe and small scale nuclear energy power plants such as Bill Gates and others are investing in.
One part of my past life was at a senior position in a major US electric utility. That utility has since decommissioned their dirty coal fired power plants. The air pollution from such power plants is deadly.
I admit that I am not a scientific expert on global atmospheric oxygen levels ... which you are right are about 21% ... but you failed to mention this is at sea level.
You also failed to clearly state that atmospheric oxygen levels have varied from a low of 10 percent to a high of 35 percent over the last 540 million years or so.
In high altitude places where I have been, like La Paz Bolivia at about 13,500 ft., breathing in enough oxygen is more difficult with a 13% O2 level until you become acclimated (avg. about 1 to 2 weeks).
Most of us living at or near sea level have about 4.5 million red blood cells, which capture oxygen for the body`s use. La Paz`s indigenous residents have about 5.5 million red blood cells. As mentioned, it takes a few weeks for the body to produce the additional 1 million red blood cells ( not the 5G kind :-} ).
John, I seriously believe the more pressing issue today is limiting greenhouse gas levels versus an over worry on global oxygen levels. That stance is well support in the scientific community including by a recognized PhD scientist (Chris Poulsen) in this area:
"But Poulsen cautions that the study has no affect on what is known about Earth’s current climate. The planet’s climate is changing today because levels of GREENHOUSE GASES such as carbon dioxide and methane are rising dramatically—OXYGEN ISN'T A FACTOR."
“Oxygen levels are dropping today but at a very slow rate, approximately tens of parts per million per year," he says. "This rate is much too slow to affect climate in the modern world.”
Source: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/earths-oxygen-levels-can-affect-its-climate-180955572/
The very large issue on Climate Change is what I term as a "GeoArbitrage Scenario". Because of hotter temps, drought, crop failures etc. there could be millions of persons migrating from hotter tropic areas like Central America, Florida, etc. to northern latitude 'Climate Haven' places such as Canada, Vermont, Michigan etc.
Over the past 100 years the ANNUAL average CONUS warming was about 2.0F. Vermont far exceeds this ANNUAL warming with 2.7F (6th in the CONUS). With 2.7F of warming, Vermont is right at the Paris Climate Agreement limit of 2.7F and I think that Vermonters would want to act better in the greater 'Public Interest' to show other Americans you - Bill - Bernie - etc. are trying hard to phase in more renewable energy sources.
John, probably worth noting that one of the folks opposing this project is not a neighbor. He lives ~1 mile away and opposed the project because he drives by the project on the way to work. Some of the commentators opposing the project don't even live in the same town!
Hey Thomas. Quick reply. I would seriously consider what Brooke Dingledine has posted. I find life's best lessons are some of the most painful, as this one has likely been for you. You come from a great family that is very community minded as Bill has alluded to. I think the takeaway from this experience should be (1) that its best to engage with neighbors to projects early on; (2) steer clear of floodplains, floodways, wetlands, critical wildlife habitat and large forest blocks (core forests),(3) locate off prime ag land and steer clear from heritage farms; better to locate where the soils are marginal and the project will not damage the integrity or viability of the farm going forward. Engaging with neighbors, and most importantly those who have real concerns early on and working out those concerns where possible will guarantee you the greatest success with the least stress and cost in the long run. Best to you. Say hi to your dad for me.
Hi John, Thanks for your kind words. Here is the thing, to produce the power needed for VT get off fossil fuels a town the size of Manchester needs 100-150 acres of solar in addition to other forms of renewables. If solar avoids of all the areas you highlight its going to be next to impossible to build the amount of renewable energy needed to get off fossil fuels. It very likely impossible to build all the renewable energy needed and make it completely invisible.
The fact remains that the site you chose is not a good site for solar, and it does affect some neighbors negatively. The PUC has denied a renewable energy project for the same reason, shocking and offensive to the average person, and that was only one part-time neighbor, not an entire housing development.