Last week, the House Committee on Natural Resources and Energy held several hearings on wind energy. Two bills were the primary subjects: S.30, the former “wind moratorium bill” that was virtually defanged before final passage in the Senate; and H.245, a moratorium bill essentially similar to the original S.30. I attended one day’s worth of hearings (hey, I’ve got a life, y’know).

Earlier, I posted reports on the committee’s quick dismissal of H.322, which called for a study of the already-studied prospects for wind turbines in Lake Champlain; and on the discussion (in and out of committee) on the issue of curtailment.  Here’s my report on the committee’s work on S.30 and H.245.

It was a shadow play of sorts. House leadership opposes a moratorium, as does Governor Shumlin, as does committee chair Tony Klein (D-East Montpelier). The outcome was never in doubt — some sort of legislation may emerge, but it won’t include a moratorium or any other significant roadblocks to ridgeline wind — but Klein offered his opponents a polite hearing, barely bothering to counter their arguments, even when he had the evidence on his side. Give ’em enough rope…  

The Windies were represented by Rep. Mark Higley (R-Lowell), lead sponsor of H.245. He began by jumping on the “curtailment” bandwagon, which I addressed in an earlier diary. And then he moved on to a rather curious argument: that what we need is good, solid, unbiased information:

A developer comes in with big plans and offers and its perception of impact, and the “anti” groups come in with their own information. Extreme points of view. What I’m looking for, if there can be some piece the towns can hang onto, information not coming from developers or anti’s, but down the middle.

I say “rather curious” because, on a bookshelf in the hearing room, there were two big thick binders full of unbiased information: 29 reports on wind power written over the past 15 years by various state agencies and commissions, addressing the whole gamut of wind issues: environmental and health impacts, noise, potential for power generation, siting… anything you could think of has been studied “down the middle.” (Photo: Klein brandishing his binders.)

Of course, the Windies reject all those studies because, I guess, the state is in the pocket of Iberdrola or something. Which begs the question, where does Mr. Higley think we’re going to get unbiased information? And how does he define “down the middle,” since he implicitly rejects the state’s own body of work?

“So you’re not opposed to wind?” queried Rep. Klein. “You’re just interested in transparency and access? Are you opposed to wind?”

Higley ducked the question. “It’s more in regard to information for towns to make informed decisions, and alleviate the controversy as much as you can.”

Klein tried again: “If the issue is ridgelines, let’s agree on a certain height — nothing is permitted above that height. Not a ski area, a hotel, a house, a transmission line, a communication tower. I’m serious. If that is the issue, I support that 100%. What I have a problem is, ‘We want a ban on this, but not that.'”

Higley dodged, inartfully: “For whatever reason, these wind turbines cause problems.”

To sum up, he’s open to any high-elevation development except wind turbines. All he wants is unbiased information, but he doesn’t accept any of the information already available. And he’s unwilling to define the circumstances under which he would accept more wind development.  

Glad we’ve got that cleared up.

The committee then heard from Sen. Diane Snelling, who formally presented S.30 by — wouldn’t you know — professing her search for “a reasonable middle ground.” She portrayed herself as working to remove anti-wind provisions from S.30 and focus on “the decision making process.”

Klein didn’t try to rebut her arguments, and instead focused his attention on a section in S.30 banning development on state lands. “When I first read the public lands piece, my reading was they’re not going to be able to harvest any timber. [Parks Commissioner] Mike Snyder agreed.”

“I’m distressed to hear that,” replied Snelling. “I’ll have to speak with Commissioner Snyder.”

Committee Vice-Chair Margaret Cheney chimed in. “Mike Snyder testified that there are many unintended consequences. State policy is ‘active management.’ This bill would basically shut down the state parks.”

Snelling: “The [Senate Natural Resources] Committee’s intent was to protect state lands without disrupting the operation of state parks.”

And when you look at the Senate-approved version of S.30, you see the fruits of that intent — and the cause for Snyder’s concerns. The bill prohibits “Construction for any commercial purpose, including the generation of electric power” in state parks or forests. It then provides six exceptions, including visitor centers, public safety measures, telecommunications facilities (hmm), hydroelectric power (double hmm), maple syrup harvesting, and “a structure, road, or landing for forestry purposes.”

But there’s no exception for actual forestry work. And controlled timber harvesting is a primary revenue source for the state parks system.

The final version of S.30 was drafted in a hurry, as supporters softened the bill in an effort to convince a few undecided senators. Seems they didn’t iron out all the bugs.

Not that it really matters. S.30 and H.245 are going nowhere in the House. Klein did indicate he wants to move some kind of energy bill to address issues brought up in this year’s debate. He talked of requiring potential developers “to find out if there are any curtailment issues.” And he promised that “We will get something out of this committee that will further the discussion.”

Although Klein is pro-wind, he realizes the need for a process that will help “calm the waters.” Given the complete intransigence of the Windies, it’s hard to see how he can realize that goal.

More testimony is scheduled this week, and Klein is hoping to get a bill out of committee by Friday.