Neighbors push back against Randolph, Norwich solar array proposals

Editor’s Note: This story by Claire Potter first appeared in the Valley News on Feb. 5.

RANDOLPH — Neighbors of proposed net-metering solar arrays in Norwich and Randolph are pressuring their local governments to backtrack and rescind their support.

The proposed arrays would never have gone before the Public Utility Commission for approval if they had not received “preferred site letters,” which had to be signed by the towns’ respective planning commissions and selectboards as well as the regional planning committee. Norwich Solar Technologies would develop both of the 500-kilowatt arrays.

In Randolph, the array would be built on Davis Road in a residential neighborhood dotted with farms. The parcel, which used to be logged, now has early successional growth.

Joan Allen and Michael Binder, whose property abuts the proposed array, went to the selectboard Jan. 13 with their concerns. Maps submitted by the developer indicated that panels and the access road would be on steep land, although the Town Plan prohibits renewable generation facilities on lands with a slope over 25%. Building on sloped land can exacerbate erosion during heavy storms.

Jim Merriam, CEO of Norwich Solar Technologies, assured town officials that no solar panels would be built on land with a slope above 25%. The company also filed a letter that made it a condition of a certificate of public good issued by the PUC approval the company would not build on any slopes greater than 25%.

Since the Jan. 13 meeting, the company hired a third-party contractor to survey the land, which Merriam said confirmed that a 500 kW array could be built on the parcel while avoiding the 25% slopes. The company plans to present an updated map at the selectboard’s Feb. 10 meeting.

But Binder and Allen’s concerns extend beyond the slope to the project’s possible impact on a vernal pool on their property, wildlife passage and recreation.

“We’d just like to see wide-open spaces kept as natural as possible,” Allen said. “We moved here looking for a working landscape, not industrial solar power at our backdoor.”

Ethics concerns

Opponents of the project are also concerned about how local officials handled Norwich Technologies’ proposal. The property in question belongs to the estate of Trini Brassard’s father, and Brassard chairs the selectboard. 

She has recused herself from votes regarding the array. At the Jan. 13 selectboard meeting, she disclosed her conflict of interest. Vice Chair Lawrence Satcowitz said he saw no issue with her leading the meeting, and she did.

Kathy Leonard, who lives on Davis Road, filed a conflict of interest complaint with the selectboard.

The town’s conflict-of-interest policy states that a public officer who has recused herself from a proceeding “shall not sit with the board, deliberate with the board, or participate in that proceeding as a board member in any capacity.” However, it also includes a disclosure clause that allows a public officer to explain the conflict and still participate.

“I raised it, exactly the way I should have,” Brassard said.

Norwich Solar will buy the land for $79,000 whether or not the array is approved by the Public Utilities Commission, Merriam said. The scheduled closing is Feb. 11.

Email discussion a violation?

Allen and Binder also argue that the planning commission violated open meeting laws when a majority decided not to rescind the preferred site letter after a discussion over email. 

Binder and Allen obtained the emails through a public records request. In the emails, planning commission Chair Sonny Holt expressed concern about the town’s legal liability if the letter was rescinded.

But the commission did not wait to obtain a legal opinion from the town’s attorney, Michael Tarrant, before a majority decided against rescinding the letter. Tarrant later wrote that the town could likely rescind its preferred site letter without opening any “obvious basis” for legal exposure, although there is no clear precedent.

“I do have a concern, and it’s almost an overarching one, about the potential violation of open meeting laws here and (the) way the decision was made,” selectboard member Tom Ayres said Jan. 13.

But no planning commission members except the selectboard liaison, Perry Armstrong, were at the Jan. 13 meeting, so the selectboard decided to table its discussion until its meeting on Feb. 10. In an interview, Holt said that any concerns would be clarified at the meeting, but would not provide further comment.

Norwich residents contest solar array

Meanwhile, in Norwich, several residents who live near the parcel where another 500 kW solar array is proposed requested that the selectboard rescind the preferred site letter it wrote last year. 

They argue that the array would not accord with the Town Plan, which protects views of ridgelines and hills from public lands.

“If you are walking from the town forest, it will be very visible,” said Mary Gorman, one of the letter’s eight signatories.

Roger Arnold, the selectboard chair, responded that their letter would be included in the selectboard’s packet for its Feb. 9 meeting. If someone on the board chooses, he or she may bring it up for discussion.

Several neighbors have also successfully gained “intervenor” status with the Public Utility Commission, which allows them to become formal parties to the PUC’s proceedings to protect their interests. Several outlined concerns about how a net-metered array may affect electricity prices, as well as its environmental impact in an area with vernal pools and wildlife.

Aaron Lamperti, an abutting landowner who chairs the Energy Committee, voiced his support of the project and requested a hearing from the PUC. 

“The town and state have recognized that we are in a climate emergency and we need to pivot to clean, renewable energy sources as quickly as possible,” he wrote. “This is exactly the sort of project that will help provide that energy while maintaining the aesthetics and rural character that we so highly value in Vermont.” 

The PUC denied several requests for hearings, citing a need for more detailed and specific concerns.

But other abutting landowners disagree with Lamperti. Jayoung Joo’s land abuts the parcel, allowing her to be a party to the proceedings. Her son, Jin Kim, spoke on her behalf because she is not comfortable in English.

The neighborhood is on “the lower-income spectrum compared to other places in Norwich,” Kim pointed out. “We feel hard done by the project. We don’t like that they decided to put it here.” The assessed value of homes along Upper Loveland Road near her home range from $200,000 to $300,000. Joo works at Sushi-ya in Hanover. His father, who used to work at Dartmouth, is a professor in Korea.

The family had to put a trench into their property because of the runoff that falls down from the ridge, and worry that clearing 8 acres of trees for the array will mean more water rushing down the ridge to their property.

Critics of the Norwich array are particularly concerned about the company’s plan to cut over 8 acres of trees because of the carbon that would be released and the wildlife that depend on the forest.

Merriam responded that, acre for acre, a Vermont solar array offsets about 70 times what a Vermont acre of forest can sequester.

He also argued that, while electric generation from fossil fuels may be a few cents cheaper, the social cost of carbon should not be discounted.

“You have to look at this through a bigger lens. If you can get a cheaper kilowatt-hour at a coal plant, you’re going to be paying for that somewhere else in your budget,” he said.