THOSE WHO follow news articles in the Valley Reporter (I do, because Moretown is part of my district) are aware that a tempest has been brewing there over the interest of a Mas- sachusettsbased company in the possibility of a commercial wind operation on the ridge of mountains facing Waitsfield from its east.

The tempest is coming from worried citizens, some who have formed a citizen’s alliance to “save the ridgeline.” There have been several meetings that turned out crowds and produced headlines.

It’s been on my “to do” list for a while, because it seemed to me that if the ridge faces Waitfield and Moretown from the east, then it must be the one that divides them from Northfield. Indeed, the news reports have all referenced, “the Northfield Ridge.”

Is this in Northfield as well? If so, why aren’t our citizens being informed? Where is our opportunity to have a discussion and learn the facts?

After receiving words of concern from several residents here, I picked up the phone to talk to a representative from Citizen's Energy at its branch in Maine, the headquarters for its northeastern projects.

Yes, it is in Northfield as well. Yes, it will affect residents here. He referenced it as a three town project: Waitsfield, Moretown and Northfield.

So the next logical inquiry was why folks in Northfield were being kept in the dark while a major wind project was being planned in Northfield.

This is what he explained:

The company approached the conceptual possibility of a project on the Northfield Ridge because from a purely technical standpoint, it appears it might be a good site. Its next planning phase is to engage in dialogue with the communities involved to determine the level of interest.

The footprint of the potential project would involve land in Northfield, along with Waitsfield and Moretown. However, a great deal more work would need to be done to even assess feasibility. Prior to that investment, full outreach to all area residents is planned.

The company was, in its words "backed into a couple of meetings" that were not planned at such a preliminary stage, when word of an introductory conversation about wind energy with the Planning Board in Waitsfield spread rapidly, and there was a large community turnout and coverage in the local press.

He said they did not have answers to questions yet, because they were still involved in early review. No specific proposal exists yet. A Moretown energy committee then invited the company to give a presentation about wind power there, and more folks showed up.

The company’s intent is to begin active outreach to provide information and seek community response in Northfield by about mid-September. [That would have been the intended time line for Waitsfield and Moretown.] After getting this initial gauge of the level of support, the next step planned is a "very public series of events" to create good public dialogue.

One of the constituent emails I had received had a copy of a listing in “Works in Progress,” a web site that, for a fee, gives contractors a heads’ up on pending projects in case they might be interested in advance time for preparing a bid.

The list gave detailed criteria for construction of a 16-to-24 tower project on the Northfield Ridge. It makes it appear as though a full blown project is already near a bidding process.

Citizen’s Energy was stunned to hear about the listing, and the representative said he could not imagine its source. The company is not remotely near a point of issuing any such request for bids, as the project is still fully in the investigative stage.

I think good public discussion about the pros and cons of specific wind farm sites is essential. However, we need clear facts to judge potential project proposals. I told the company that it needed to start talking to folks in Northfield as soon as possible, because otherwise, misinformation will soon start spreading quickly.

I am a strong believer in the need to develop the capacity and improve the expertise of drawing energy from the wind. To those who cite its inefficiencies, I would point out that everything new we ever develop makes progress only through learned experience. Everything has to start somewhere.

Are there risks to the environment: wildlife and forests, and the unblemished beauty that is linked to the number one source of our economy (tourism)? Of course there are risks that must be balanced by the benefits.

It often seems to be human nature to “want it all” without accepting the reality that everything has its trade-offs. Health care is actually a nearly identical issue. “Close Yankee” or “single payer” are not standalone solutions.

We have no perfect source of energy, and while efficiencies are the least expensive investment to meet energy needs, they can only bring us so far. We have chosen a standard of life that demands huge energy resources.

We could rely on coal; no one wants to see that. Increase more reliance on foreign oil, or drill more wells in the Gulf? Some argue that even Hydro-Quebec should not be considered renewable energy because of the devastation caused by flooding to produce the source (but heck, that’s another country’s problem); small, local hydro is opposed because of its impact on the aquatic environment.

The aging Vermont Yankee plant rightfully should give us pause. But the Vermont Public Interest Group (VPIRG) provides us with its best-case scenario for being able to replace the energy VY provides (without including price tags.)

Under its scenario, we would only need to fill in with increases in gas and oil until about 2016, and would break free of those sources by 2018.

That assumes the ability, over the next eight years, to significantly increase a still small percentage of farm digesters and biomass; solar doesn’t start making any real impact until the late 2020s. It includes some further reduction in demand through higher efficiencies.

The biggest assumption for replacing Vermont Yankee without a long term shift to existing market resources rests predominantly on new wind power. It is based on an estimate of bringing it from a near zero percent of current non-Yankee and nonrenewable energy sources to 25 percent in the next three years, and to 55 percent by 2018.

As a percentage of our total estimated (reduced) power needs, wind would need to go from negligible to 11 percent in three years and to 23 percent by 2018.

That is a pretty major and rapid increase in wind-generated power, from 0 to 600 to 1,200 in raw GWh by 2018. (By 2028, VPIRG projects wind as being able to produce 3,000 GWh in Vermont, more than currently produced by Yankee.)

So yes, it’s all about balancing risks and benefits, and what outcomes we want the most. Those who support wind, like me, certainly don’t want wind farms covering Mount Mansfield. Where do we balance highest benefits and lower downsides?

The mix is not easy, but we need to use great caution, when we object to sites, that it is not because we object to it being “our” ridge line rather than because its specific downsides do truly outweigh the benefits in the big picture.

Wind is a very important piece of future renewable energy sources, and I do not think any conversation about development of projects should be cut off prematurely.

We need the full conversation, but it needs to take state energy policy into account, and we need to enter the discussion with an open mind.

Let’s hope Citizen’s Energy brings the discussion about its ideas to put on the table in Northfield sooner, rather than later.