So, Vermont-based groSolar has a plan. It wants to build a 2.3-megawatt solar array on a piece of vacant land in Rutland town, with 60-foot setbacks on all sides and plans for suitable landscaping to provide a visual barrier. The land is located less than a half-mile from the very busy (and ugly) Rutland commercial strip on Route 7, and is zoned “industrial.” Steve Remen of groSolar told the Rutland Herald (paywalled):

“We feel solar is one of the least offensive uses for land that was designated industrial,” he said. “There will be no emissions or noise, there will be no increase in traffic, we require no services from the town, and we are a net contributor to the town.”

So we’re all fine here, no?

Nope. (This link is to a shorter, non-paywalled version of the story.)

A group of Rutland residents is opposing plans for a 15-acre 2.3 megawatt solar power installation that would be built in a field in the Vermont town.

The group Vermonters for Responsible Solar was formed by three neighbors of the plan for the project in an empty field off Cold River Road in the town of Rutland.  

Aaargh.

Let’s take that “neighbors” thing first. This ain’t no neighborhood in any real sense of the word; it’s a wide-open stretch of rural land with a dotting of houses on one side of the road. You’d be hard-pressed to walk from one to the next. “Nearby landowners” is closer to the mark. Still, they’re demanding a 200-foot setback on all sides, plus other, unspecified, “new siting standards for solar projects.” (The site is long, its top half is narrow and includes a dogleg. A 200-foot setback would dramatically cut the potential size of the array.)

The brand-new “group” (with a membership of, ahem, three) must have a little money behind it. They’ve got a website, they’ve got professionally printed signs posted in the area, and they’ve hired a professional PR person as spokesflack. And, on top of all that, they’re willing to buy the property if the groSolar deal falls apart. Maybe these people are wealthy enough to do all this on their own, but I suspect there are links to other anti-renewable groups around the state. (Which, I suspect, have links to the broader, fossil fuel industry-funded anti-renewable movement. I can’t prove it because none of these groups will disclose any information about membership or funding.)

I have predicted this in the past: that the anti-wind crusade would, sooner or later, turn its attention to solar.  

And lest you think I’m overreacting to an outbreak of NIMBYism by three landowners, I’ll point to its use of the phrase “solar sprawl” on its website. And then I’ll point to a recent opinion piece by La Doña Quixote herself, Annette Smith, in which she employs the essentially identical phrase “energy sprawl” in making a case for strict new limits, not only on the ridgeline wind turbines she’s fought so tenaciously, but on any kind of renewable expansion in Vermont:

Of all the technologies, big wind turbines create the most issues. Biomass is next, followed by solar. Fortunately these issues are quantifiable and finite. Once identified, conversations can follow. For instance, should photovoltaic installations first be constructed on the already-built landscape? Should prime agricultural soils be avoided? What are the stormwater runoff implications of fields of solar panels, and are those impacts being adequately anticipated and addressed? Looking at what has been installed so far, can we point to “good” and “bad” installations and learn from them? What do we want to see more of and what do we want to see less of? What are the issues for historic districts? Scenic areas? And firefighters?

Firefighters?  You expecting the panels to burst into flames?

What you see here is Smith’s throw-everything-at-the-wall-and-hope-something-sticks approach to advocacy: bring up every conceivable notion you can think of, no matter how farfetched (or already disproven) in an attempt to make your case look bigger than it is. Kind of like a pufferfish. “What are the issues for overflying aircraft? Amateur astronomers? And pizza delivery guys? Vermont needs to KNOW.”

With her deployment of the phrase “energy sprawl” and the questions posed above, Smith lays down a marker: any kind of energy development on currently undeveloped land is unacceptable. That is truly an extreme position. It would cripple our ability to get anywhere near our renewable-energy goals. And it would prevent us from being part of the solution to climate change: all new projects would be fought, tooth and nail. Some projects would be abandoned, and all would face lengthy delays.

Now, I’m all for reasonable standards for new energy development. Many sites are unsuitable for historic, scenic, environmental, practical, and other reasons. And nobody is calling for border-to-border solar panels, any more than they’re calling for turbines on every ridgeline. (Relatively few ridgelines are feasible for turbine deployment.) But we can’t abstain completely from the clean-energy transition in the service of someone’s concept of purity.

Call me crazy, but when I see a solar installation or a turbine array, I see Vermont being a productive part of a clean energy future, with clean-source production distributed across our landscape, urban, suburban, and rural. I want to see Vermont make wise use of its clean-energy resources. Maybe even become a net exporter of energy. It’d do a lot to fight climate change, and drive our economy as well*, with little real impact on our environment.

*Every time we say “no” to an energy project, we’re forgoing short-term jobs and long-term tax revenues. That doesn’t mean we should greenlight every project, but it should definitely be a consideration when we don’t have enough money to support the kind of government we’d like to have. It’s a choice we have to make.

When we reject new energy sources, we tacitly embrace the existing ones.  Instead of exporting clean energy, we are exporting the environmental damage caused by fossil fuels, nuclear power, and the gigantic hydro projects in northern Quebec. That’s nativism: Vermont-centered thinking that ignores the broader issues in play. (The alternative “clean energy plan” devised by Luke Snelling of Energize Vermont relies heavily on nuclear power and Hydro Quebec as its “clean” sources.)

Well, I’ve come a long way from an undeveloped parcel in Rutland Town. But I’m alarmed at the prospect of an anti-solar movement fueled by NIMBYism, nativism, and quackery. And it’s already getting started.