This page contains two documents:  "Fast Facts" and the longer "Wind Turbines are not Magic"

Fast Facts 

Answers to "Most Asked Questions" Proposed Glebe Mountain Wind Turbine Project

Wind Turbine Details

·     Proposed: 27 wind turbines, 330’ tall (the Statue of Liberty is 305’ tall).  The tubular steel mast is 200’ with three 132’ rotating blades.(1)

·     Type proposed: Vestas V-80, manufactured in Denmark.  Name plate capacity (maximum output): 1.8 megawatts (MW).  Rotor speed: 16 rpm (blades turn 16 times per minute, or once every 4 seconds).(2)

·     Each wind turbine mast weighs 170 tons, consisting of 4 sections, assembled on site.  Two cranes are required to maneuver and position the tower sections and blades.(3)

·     The foundation for each turbine is 61’ x 61’.  About 8900 cubic feet of concrete and 48 tons of steel are used for the platforms that support each turbine.  The foundations are buried 30’ deep.(4)

·     These are not the largest turbines manufactured: GE’s new turbines are 400’ tall, but these are too large to transport and position on ridgelines.(5) 

Lighting 

·     The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires all structures over 200’ tall to be fitted with aircraft navigation lights, and has specific recommendations for wind turbines.(6)

·     Maximum requirements: the turbines could be required to have each fitted with three flashing strobes, one red (night) and two white (day), flashing 40 times per minute, 24/7.(7)

·     Possible: FAA might agree to constant light, rather than strobe; might agree to red lights only, and/or selective lighting of towers.  The developer has not received any exemptions from the FAA at this time.(8)

Site Information

·    The 27 towers will cover 3.5 miles of ridgeline, positioned approximately 500’ apart.(9)

·    Leased land for the project will total approximately 2,000 to 3,000 acres.  Some unused land could be returned to lessors.  The wind turbines will occupy approximately 100 acres; each tower will require one to two acres of clear cutting; more land will need to be cleared for power lines and access roads.(10)

·    Once permits are acquired, construction will take about 12 months.(11)

·    The project will require a four-lane access roadway, and connections to the substation at Thompsonburg Road, South Londonderry.  Power lines may be buried along the ridgelines or use utility poles along the access road.

·    Wind turbines on Glebe Mountain would be visible from Route 100, Route 121, Route 11, Lowell Lake, and the towns of Londonderry, Weston, Andover, Peru, Landgrove, and Windham, among others, as well as Stratton and Bromley Mountains. 

Scope of Project 

·    The developer of the proposed project is Catamount Energy, a non-regulated, independent power subsidiary of Central Vermont Public Service (CVPS).

·    Catamount estimates the project will cost $58 million.(12)  Searsburg (11 turbines), owned by Green Mountain Power, cost approximately $11 million.

·    Two parties are landowners of the proposed site: the owner of Magic Mountain (a New York resident), and a New Jersey resident.  Landowners at this and similar projects have been offered $3,000 - $5,000 per turbine per year in leasing fees. 

·    Catamount has offered to create a fund to decommission the wind turbines if the project is abandoned, or at the end of its useful life (approximately 20 years), but has not provided details.(13)

·    The proposed Glebe Mountain project is larger than any wind generation facility currently in place in the Northeast.  By comparison, the current Searsburg plant has 11 towers, 193’ tall, no lighting, and is visible from only a few locations.  However, negotiations are currently underway to expand the Searsburg project into U.S. Forest Service wilderness land with 20 wind turbines, 330’ tall, requiring lighting.(14)

Why Glebe Mountain? 

·    Potential wind-positive sites actually are not that plentiful in Vermont, which ranks 32nd in the U.S. in wind resources.(15)

·    Wind turbines require strong and persistent winds.  In Vermont, turbines need to be sited on ridgelines to capture prevailing winds (from the west).(16)   Strongest winds are in fall and spring; however, peak electric demand is in the winter months.

·    Suitable ridgelines are those at heights of 2000’ to 3400’; below 2000’ the wind is not strong enough; over 3400’ the fragile environment and potential for icing create problems.(17)

·    About 600 to 700 miles of Vermont ridgelines fall between 2000’ and 3400’.  About 75-85% of these exist on government land and much of that may have been deeded to the state with non-development provisions. (18)  Consequently, about 100-140 miles of Vermont ridgeline are suitable for wind turbines.

·    Searsburg, at elevations of 2700 to 2900’, and Glebe Mountain at 2923’ are good candidates for wind turbine projects.  Winds of 18 mph have been recorded at Searsburg.(19)  Also, Catamount states that the Glebe Mountain site has the appropriate north/south alignment required to optimize the prevailing winds.(20) 

Power Information, State of Vermont 

·    Wind-powered electrical plants will have no significant effect on our dependence on imported petroleum.  Vermont uses less than 1% of petroleum fuel to generate electricity.(21)

·    The U.S. uses only 5% petroleum to generate electricity, and little is imported (2.5% is imported, 2.5% from U.S. resources).  95% of U.S. electricity is generated from domestic supplies of natural gas, coal, nuclear power and hydroelectric power.

·   85% of petroleum used in the U.S. oil is for transportation and automobiles.(22)

·   Vermont’s current electric power supply: 43% from hydroelectric power, 36% from nuclear power, 5% from renewable energy sources  (wood chip/waste generation), 14% from spot purchases of out-of-state natural gas and hydro, 1% gas, 1% oil, and 0.0% coal.(23)

·    Vermont uses about 6 million MWh of electricity per year, and buys only about 14-15% on the spot market,(24) which implies that the state has fairly good resources for electric energy.  

·    The average “load” in Vermont is 600 MW, and can rise to 1000 MW at peak usage.(25)  Estimates show average Vermont home usage as 650 kWh per month.(26)

·    Currently less than a fraction of 1% of Vermont’s electric power is supplied by wind power.  Taking current proposals into account, wind power could account for 1 to 2% of Vermont’s electrical power.

·     Vermont now has among the highest utility rates in the U.S. at $0.1174 kWh paid by homeowners.  Prices in the retail market in Vermont are set by the Vermont Public Service Board.(27)

·    The two most significant utilities, CVPS and Green Mountain Power, have similar mixes of power resources, so likely have similar costs.  Green Mountain Power reports its cost of power as follows: nuclear $0.041; Hydro Quebec $0.061, wind power $0.070.28  If the Federal Production Tax Credit of $0.017 is included, the unsubsidized cost of wind-generated electric power would be $0.087. 

Wind Turbine Power

·    The proposed 27 wind turbines, combined, can generate up to 48.6 MW of power (1.8 MW each).  Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant produces 550 MW.

·    However, due to the intermittent nature of wind power, wind turbines do not generate power consistently or reliably.  In 2001, Searsburg generated electricity 23% of the time.(29)  Catamount estimates 32% (or 15.5 MW) capacity for the Glebe Mountain project.(30)  

·    Wind power cannot substitute for other generation facilities, since it requires back up generation at all times by base energy sources.  Per Catamount, “Due to its base load pattern, nuclear power would not be displaced in the short term by wind energy.”(31)

Economics of Wind Power Development

·     Current tax breaks, such as the Federal Production Tax Credit (PTC) provide incentives to development.  Wind power developers receive production tax credits of 1.7 cents per kWh for the first 10 years of the life of the facility.(32)

·     Current tax law allows wind farm developers to write off 60% of total investment in the first year.(33)

·     Several states provide funds to purchase “green power” (from renewable energy sources) at higher rates than other sources of electrical energy.  Thirteen states mandate that a percentage of their electricity come from renewable sources.(34)   The Vermont legislature has recently passed a law mandating that the state establish a minimum standard for utilizing renewable power.  The standard has not yet been established. 

Impact on Town of Londonderry

·    Property taxes from the wind turbine project will go predominantly to the State of Vermont, not to the Town of Londonderry.

·    Catamount claims an initial short-term construction requirement of 30 to 40 jobs, and after completion, 4 to 6 operating jobs.  Operation of the facility is a computer-automated function, and routine maintenance is performed by specially trained engineers.(35)

Decision-Making Process

·     Act 250, passed in 1972, was designed to protect Vermont’s environment and ridgelines. 

·     Electric generation facilities are except from Act 250 review.  They only need to obtain a Certificate of Public Good from the Vermont Public Service Board, a three-member utility panel.

·     Applications for wind power turbine projects are made to the Public Service Board, which has the authority to approve such petitions.  The current 150’ meteorological tower, now on Glebe Mountain, was approved by the PSB in January, 2003. 

·     The Public Service Board was created by Act 248 to oversee and regulate the rates and performance of the state’s monopolistic utilities, such as telecommunications and electricity, to ensure they do not overcharge or misuse their monopolistic power.  

·     Although Act 248 was not designed with unregulated utilities in mind, wind turbine developers such as Catamount can apply for permits under Act 248, rather than Act 250.

·     However, the Public Service Board is obliged to approve projects pursuant to 30 V.S.A. sect. 248 which contains ten Act 250-like review criteria and includes “due consideration” to town and regional plans.  In reality, Act 248 gives power to the PSB to override local concerns when deemed “for the public good.” 

Habitats 

·     Catamount has stated it will conduct studies to determine if the area is critical to bear habitat or other species that need to be protected.(36)

·     We do know that Glebe Mountain is a critical black bear feeding corridor; that is, there are pockets of American beech stands with evidence of black bear use along the ridge.3

8/14/03

1Catamount Energy, PowerPoint presentation to Londonderry Selectboard and Planning Board, 11/18/02 (www.catenergy.com, “Business is Brisk”/“Development Projects”

2Ibid.

3Vestas V-80 installation photos

4Ibid.

5GE web site (www.gepower.com)

6FAA documents (www.faa.gov)

7Ibid.

8Catamount Energy, Collaboration 7/17/03

9Catamount Energy, PowerPoint presentation to Londonderry Selectboard and Planning Board, 11/18/02

10Catamount Energy, Collaboration 7/17/03

11Ibid.

12Catamount Energy, Open Letter to the Community, 3/3/03

13Catamount Energy, Collaboration 7/17/03

14Conservation Law Foundation, Collaboration 7/17/03

15American Wind Energy Association (www.awea.org)

16David Blittersdorf, NRG Systems; Forum, Vermont’s Electric Supply, Manchester, 7/21/03

17Ibid.

18Dave Lamont, Dept. of Public Service; Forum, Vermont’s Electric Supply, Manchester, 7/21/03

19David Blittersdorf, NRG Systems; Forum, Vermont’s Electric Supply, Manchester, 7/21/03

20Catamount Energy, Open Letter to the Community, 3/3/03

21Energy Information Association, U.S. Dept. of Energy: “State Electricity Profiles 2001-Vermont.”  (www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/vermont/vt.ntml) 

22”The Future of Energy Policy” by T. Worth, C.B. Gray, J.D. Podesta, Foreign Affairs, July/August 2003

23Vermont Public Service Board

24David Lamont, Dept. of Public Service; Forum, Vermont’s Electric Supply, Manchester, 7/21/03

25Ibid.

26“As electric demand rises, what is ‘clean energy’?”, Meggan Clark, Brattleboro Reformer, 7/15/03

27Peter Bradford, Londonderry, 6/5/03

28Green Mountain Power Annual Report, 2001

29Ibid.

30Catamount Energy, Collaboration 7/17/03

31Catamount Energy, Open Letter to the Community, 3/3/03

32”Resisting the Wind,” Editorial, Burlington Free Press, 7/24/03

33Glenn R. Schleede, Energy Market and Policy Analysis, 7//9/03

34“GMP plants to add 20 windmills to Searsburg site,” Eesha Williams, Brattleboro Reformer, 5/9/03

35Catamount Energy, PowerPoint presentation to Londonderry Selectboard and Planning Board, 11/18/02

36Catamount Energy, Open Letter to the Community, 3/3/03

37Ibid.

WIND TURBINES ARE NOT MAGIC

CATAMOUNT ENERGY CORP, an unregulated subsidiary of CENTRAL VERMONT PUBLIC SERVICE, is proposing construction of an industrial wind turbine energy plant along 3.5 miles of the Glebe Mountain ridgeline in Londonderry and Windham . Twenty-seven turbines would stand 330 feet tall, each one higher than the Bennington Battle Monument or at least a 33-story building.  Each tower on Glebe Mountain would require lighting and each would weigh 216,090 pounds. The Glebe Mountain project would be bigger than any wind generation facility currently in place in the Northeast. By comparison, the largest wind facility in Vermont , in the Town of Searsburg , has 11 towers, none of which is lighted.  The Searsburg towers are much shorter -- 193 feet tall -- and are visible from only a few locations. 

THE FOLLOWING ARE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS THAT ADDRESS SOME OF THESE CONCERNS:

1)     Will the project result in any substantial economic benefit to the Town of Londonderry ?

·        The proposed project will probably increase Londonderry ’s Grand List, but because Londonderry is a "sending town," the majority of revenues will go to the State of Vermont for distribution through the sharing pool.[i]  If Londonderry decides to spend at a higher level than the block grants, or if property values are diminished as a result of the project, then the negative impacts will more than offset the modest increase in municipal revenues.

·        Catamount has already asked for a 45% reduction in their implied property taxes[ii].   If some of the turbines sat on the Windham side of the mountain, the resulting increase in tax revenues would be even less.

2)     Who does benefit from this project?

·        Two individuals, one the owner of Magic (a New York City lawyer) and the other, a sole landowner (a New Jersey executive) could receive significant lease income. We have been told that landowners have been offered $3000 - $5000 per turbine per year with $3000 being the guarantee and more depending on how much electricity is generated[iii].

·        The windfarm owners, Catamount Energy and their parent company, Central Vermont Public Service, would be able to substantially reduce their tax liability. 

·        The owners’ investment in windfarms (should they use the proposed Danish made Vestas V-80[iv]) would not provide much economic benefit to the US. The large dollar outflow for wind turbines, like imported oil, would simply add to the burgeoning merchandise trade deficit.

3)     Will wind power make Vermont less dependant on outside energy generation facilities?

·        Wind power is not a reliable source of energy. Wind power is so intermittent and variable that it requires backup generation facilities for the substantial period that the wind turbines are not producing power. Searsburg produced electricity only 22% of the time in 2001[v]. Wind power can supplement some other sources of power when the turbines are operating, but wind power is not a substitute for other generation facilities.

·        Vermont is ranked only 32nd in the country in wind power resources[vi]. Wind power could NEVER be a primary source of power for the state[vii].

·        We also need to look honestly and factually at our real choices in the Northeast and Vermont specifically, since we consume almost no fossil fuel based energy in the State. We DO need to cut back consumption of fossil fuels and nuclear energy. This is a national issue that needs to address the DEMAND side as well as the supply side of this equation.

·        The decision to rush into this project is driven by the fear that Production Tax Credits and other wind energy incentives might not be renewed. The community needs to get all the facts and determine what is in the best interest of the community, the State and the Nation. That is why we are suggesting a moratorium on wind turbine construction until all the facts are reviewed and people both on the State and local levels can address these complex issues.

4)     Is the wind turbine project consistent with the Regional and Town Plans?

·        The Regional Plan expressly states, "The region enjoys exceptional scenic quality. Mountain landscapes, farm landscapes, historic villages and towns, ridgelines, the night sky and nighttime landscapes, shorelines, and scenic views and corridors are all highly vulnerable to development."  It also indicates significant concern for ANY development in elevations above 2500 ft. (See map attached for elevations)

·        The Londonderry Town Plan identifies Glebe Mountain as a scenic area, and Londonderry zoning designates Glebe Mountain as part of a Resource Conservation Overlay District designed to protect the most sensitive areas of the Town.

·        The Town Plan makes several recommendations to preserve and protect its resources and expressly encourages "protection of ridgelines from development which adversely affect scenic values."

5)     Are wind turbine projects of this scale consistent with Vermont’s commitment to the protection and preservation of its natural resources?

·        Vermont’s natural beauty is the primary resource which attracts visitors and makes our state such a special place.

·        Act 250 was designed to protect our environment in Vermont.  Because of Act 250, Vermont is the envy of other states that have compromised their landscapes through misguided land use and energy policies. 

·        Act 248 was designed to make sure that regulated utilities were not overcharging or misusing their monopolistic power in relation to the people in Vermont.  On the other hand, Act 248 was not designed with unregulated utilities in mind. 

·        We believe that an unregulated commercial enterprise should adhere to the same rigorous guidelines found in Act 250 that would apply to any other commercial development of this size.

·        Visual resource considerations drafted for the Public Service Department state that the most sensitive and least suitable location for siting a wind turbine project is an area:

o       On or near distinct or prominent peaks; or

o       Ridgelines identified as having local scenic significance in adopted planning documents; or

o       Ridgelines which are highly visible from scenic road corridors, recreation areas, designated

           natural areas, designated wilderness areas, and significant hiking trails and historic sites[viii].

·        Jean Vissering developed these aesthetic considerations as part of a study conducted for the State. In this report, she referred to wind turbines that did not exceed 250 ft.[ix]  Even more care would need to be exercised when siting turbines 330 feet tall.

·        If we open the door for massive wind turbine energy projects on prominent ridgelines, the Vermont landscape as we know it will be forever changed due to the double standard inherent in Acts 248 and 250.

·        Furthermore,  a Verizon employee, which has restricted their cell towers to 100 feet, has informally indicated that they see approval of wind turbines as a de facto approval for 330 foot cell towers.

6)     Isn’t Glebe Mountain already “spoiled” because of ski trails there? 

·         The remaining local ski area, Magic Mountain (Timber Ridge is now defunct), takes up one end of a sizable mountain range.  Several miles of this undeveloped Glebe mountain ridge, much of it above 2500 feet, are used for recreation such as hiking, hunting, riding, etc[x]. 

·        There is evidence of active bear habitation on the ridgeline, and groves of cherry and beech trees on which the bears feed.  Studies still need to be done regarding impacts on birds, trees and rare or endangered plant and animal species in the area.

7)     How does this project compare with the Searsburg project?

·        The Searsburg project is significantly smaller in size and scope than the Glebe proposal. The Searsburg project consists of 11 turbines, 193 feet in total height. Because the towers are less than 200 feet tall, they are not lighted. The Searsburg topography contains adjacent ridgelines and mountain peaks which soften and minimize the impacts.

·        The Glebe Mountain proposal consists of 27 turbines having a total height of 330 feet extending along the Glebe Mountain ridgeline for more than 3.5 miles[xi]. The towers will be lighted 24 hours a day. Unlike Searsburg, there are no adjacent ridgelines or peaks to soften the visual impacts.

·        The Glebe Mountain ridgeline stands alone above the valley floors as the most dominant feature of the regional landscape. In addition, the number of people affected by the Searsburg plant is tiny compared with the number affected by the Glebe proposal.

8)     What history does Catamount Energy have in the wind turbine business?

Although Catamount Energy is putting all their efforts into wind energy, Catamount has yet to develop any wind energy projects in the United States or Europe. As part of an investment fund, Catamount has invested in two small wind farms in eastern Germany (6 turbines in one, 10 turbines in the other)[xii]. Catamount has also invested in other utilities including: one natural gas, one gas-fired, two co-generation, one hydro, one wood waste and one poultry litter facility[xiii]. They have many joint ventures partners who are looking for investment opportunities in the fast growing and heavily subsidized wind energy business[xiv].

9)     How have Catamount representatives justified the project?

·        Although Catamount states that this project would lessen our dependence on fossil fuels, the reality is different.  In the first place, Vermont uses almost no fossil fuels to generate electricity.  Less than 1% of oil is used in this capacity in the State[xv].  In addition, Vermont is ALREADY a leader in using renewable sources for generating electricity -  43% from hydro facilities, and 5% from wood chip facilities.  Electricity from wind turbines detracts from the electric system reliability.  Wind turbines produce electricity only when the wind is blowing within certain speed ranges.  The output is intermittent, highly variable, largely unpredictable, and uncontrollable.  Other generating units – those that are controllable (in electric terms, “dispatchable”) must be immediately available to back-up wind turbines and keep the electric system in balance and reliable[xvi]. Additionally, integrating these turbines into the traditional system will prove challenging since our southern grid is already known to be unstable[xvii].  Who is responsible for paying for the cost of these necessary upgrades to the grid and the lines going to the grid?

·        Catamount has suggested that one of the benefits would be an increase in tourism as an eco-tourism attraction[xviii]. We believe that any initial novelty value as a tourist attraction will quickly wear off once the wind turbines have been seen.

10)  What are the health and safety implications of a wind turbine plant?

·        Because of safety issues associated with these huge structures, such as winter icing, blade throws and turbine failures, access to some of these areas used for skiing and other recreation could be reduced.

·        We believe Catamount has a responsibility to prove that this project would not harm the health and safety of skiers, and recreational users of the mountain range as well as animals in the region.

·        A project in Addison, Wisconsin was not approved because of the concern that a 381’ turbine could potentially throw ice chunks up to 1,465 ft.[xix].

·        Noise from large turbines have been shown to affect people near existing sites causing anxiety, sleeplessness and other physical symptoms that significantly reduce the quality of life[xx].

11)  How much does wind power really cost?

·        Although it is generally believed that wind power is getting more competitive with other forms of electric generation, there are sizable costs that should be acknowledged by wind proponents.  These include a) the cost of back-up generation, b) the inefficient use and higher costs of transmission capacity c) the higher costs imposed on grid management[xxi], 

·        These higher costs are passed along to electric customers and are often hidden in monthly bills. The generous tax breaks for windfarm owners shift the tax burden to remaining taxpayers[xxii].

·        Wind Power is not benign.  In addition to these personal, environmental and social costs, noise, light, loss of wildlife habitat, bird kills, loss of recreational land, and a reduced scenic environment and quality of life should be factored into the cost of wind power.

The GLEBE MOUNTAIN GROUP: