Department of Public Service Commissioner Chris Recchia (left) speaks at a hearing on solar siting. Photo by Erin Mansfield/VTDigger
A legislative study committee held its first meeting Tuesday to figure out how to write a law to guide where solar farms can be built in Vermont.
The Solar Siting Task Force was formed as part of H.40, the renewable energy bill that Gov. Peter Shumlin signed into law as Act 56. The 10-person group has until Jan. 15 to propose legislation that would address where solar farms can be built, and how communities are involved in the siting process.
The issue has been bubbling up in local communities like Rutland Town and New Haven, where residents complain they have little say in how out-of-state solar developers site large projects.
In some cases developers want to clear-cut forests to prevent trees from shading panels. Environmentalists also say the permitting process puts at risk what they consider to be the best farmland in the state.
The Legislature made the land use planning for solar development a priority this session, but lawmakers decided to delay passage of a proposal last session and instead pushed responsibility off to the committee — a group of nine experts and one designated representative for the public.
Rep. Tony Klein, D-Montpelier, is the chair of the House Committee on Natural Resources and Energy, where H.40 originated. Klein said the team should answer three things.
“One, is there a problem?” he said. “Two, what is the problem? Three, are there ways to solve the problem to most people’s satisfaction, keeping in mind that Act 56 is the law of the land and that projects have to be built?”
The chair of the Solar Siting Task Force is Chris Recchia, commissioner of the Public Service Department, which advocates for ratepayers in regulatory proceedings. The vice chair is Linda McGinnis, the network program director for Energy Action Network Vermont. McGinnis serves as the task force’s public representative.
Other members include Deb Markowitz, secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources; Robert Dostis, a lobbyist for Green Mountain Power; Karen Horn, from the Vermont League of Cities and Towns; Adam Lougee, from the Addison County Regional Planning Commission; and Mitch Lefevre, a landscape architect.
Dostis, a former lawmaker, said the siting issue is “a good problem to have” because it means Vermont is developing a lot of renewable energy, and from a source closer to home. “I’m really actually pleased with this conversation so far,” he said.
“The future of energy distribution is not going to be based on the large plants somewhere else,” Dostis said. “(Locally-produced energy) is going to ensure that as we get hit with storms, the power will stay on.”
About a dozen Vermont residents lined the walls at the Public Service Department conference room to speak during the meeting’s public comment period. Many came from communities that faced divisive energy projects.
George Clain, of Barre Town, said solar developers are despicable. “I’ve seen firsthand a total arrogance by either the developer or the developer’s representative coming before the town and ignoring any type of zoning proposal,” Clain said.
“(Rep. Tony Klein) talked about fairness,” he said. “There is no fairness from what I see, in our perspective, when these people come for development.”
Keith Ballek, who sits on the Planning Commission in Sheffield, said: “It seems like we’ve done all this before. If anyone can remember, it was with industrial-scale wind. This time around, I really hope that something gets done.”
“To do nothing would be reckless,” he said. “How much of this renewable energy has to be made in state. Just to make that goal, you’re going to sacrifice areas that are ecologically sensitive?”
Under Vermont law, solar energy developers must get approval from the utility-regulating Public Service Board to build a project of 150 kilowatts or more. The utility regulating process is called Section 248, and the procedure resembles a court case.
Act 250 is the state’s land use law and often pits environmentalists against business interests. Act 250 has 10 criteria land developers must meet, while Section 248 specifically regulates energy generation.
Recchia said the Public Service Board has broad power to prevent “undue environmental impacts” under their current regulatory structure. He said one of the main differences between Section 248 and Act 250 is the nature of the public’s involvement.
“In the Act 250 process, people can say anything they want, whether it’s factually based or not, even if it’s just their opinion or their concern,” Recchia said. “In the case of (Section) 248, anybody who says something like that, they have to be able to back it up with evidence, be willing to be cross-examined.”
Recchia likened the controversy over solar siting to “growing pains.” He said he is not sure whether the committee will recommend to amend Section 248, change the power of regional planning commissions, or change solar siting procedures at the level of local zoning boards.
The committee meets again the second week of September.
The post Solar land use committee holds first meeting in Montpelier appeared first on VTDigger.