by Annette Smith

H.710 got very little testimony in the House Energy & Digital Infrastructure Committee and the Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee, with a brief stop in the Senate Finance Committee.  As it passed through the various committees, it was clear that legislators did not understand the bill.  There was much confusion about what it meant.

What is it?  H.710 changes the definition of “single plant” which was intended originally to address wind turbine projects, so that a road and infrastructure leading to a specific number of wind turbines was considered a “single plant.”  The new definition proposed in H.710 would allow for up to 5 MW to be added to every existing wind and solar project in Vermont.  And then another 5 MW.  And then another.  

Wind projects were never discussed in any committee.  H.710 was framed as enabling expansion of existing solar projects that would save other areas of the state from new solar development.  A phrase used informally was that the change would create “sacrifice zones” by enabling existing sites to grow.

What is wrong with this picture?  Renewable energy sprawl is already a problem.  More and more Vermonters are complaining about the mountains, fields and forests that are being sacrificed for renewable energy, without prioritizing the built environment such as parking lots or addressing the lack of effective public participation.

No testimony was taken on the environmental impacts of the proposal.  Vermonters for a Clean Environment reviewed every existing 1 – 5 MW solar array in Vermont and found that 75% of them are on agricultural fields, all of which would be the prime target for expansion.  Existing wind projects could add up to 5 MW using the same roads and power lines, breezing through the permitting process.

Neighbors who have reason to expect that a project, once approved, is final, would find themselves having to go through the full PUC process a second time, if they wanted to have a say in it.  Proponents claim that is a benefit, that the project would still have to go through the full PUC process — a brutal, time-consuming and expensive experience that Vermonters who have done it say “never again.”

H.710 is a product of Renewable Energy Vermont and VPIRG and the legislators who still think that building everything everywhere is the solution to climate change.  The green energy lobbyists were given all the time they wanted to promote it.  VCE had to fight for 15 minutes in the Senate Finance Committee, and even after the Senate Natural Resources Committee chair promised to allow me to testify after it was sent back for environmental review which never happened, VCE’s request was not honored.

This gift to the renewable energy industry at the expense of our state’s scenic beauty, environment and community interests is a signal that the system needs to change — something the Vermont legislature has repeatedly chosen to ignore while doing whatever the renewable lobby wants.  The industry will spin the veto as “anti-renewable”.  The veto is “pro-environment” and “pro-community.”  

The next legislature will have the opportunity to take up the PUC’s process for siting energy generation, whether land use decisions should move to Act 250, and policies to incentivize building renewable energy close to where it used, on the built landscape first, with protections for mountains, forests and fields enacted.  The system needs to change, and elements of the definition of “single plant” are worthy of consideration.  H.710 was railroaded through by legislators who listen to industry interests.  It is time for Vermont communities to have a seat at the table and be part of the development of renewable energy, and stop putting the industry first.  Gov. Scott’s veto of H.710 is good for the environment and our communities.

Author is Executive Director, Vermonters for a Clean Environment.