Petition of West Fairlee Stevens Solar LLC, 012021 VTPSBD, 20-3530-NMP

• Docket Nº: 20-3530-NMP
• Opinion Judge: MICAH HOWE, HEARING OFFICER
• Party Name: Petition of West Fairlee Stevens Solar LLC for a certificate of public good, pursuant to 30 V.S.A.§§ 248 and 8010, authorizing installation and operation of a 500 kW (AC) solar electric net-metering system in West Fairlee, Vermont
• Attorney: Kevin Anderson Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (for Vermont Agency of Natural Resources) Erin C. Brennan, Esq. Vermont Department of Public Service (for Vermont Department of Public Service) Kimberly K. Hayden, Esq. Paul Frank + Collins PC (for West Fairlee Stevens Solar LLC) Maxwell I Kriege...
• Case Date: January 20, 2021

Petition of West Fairlee Stevens Solar LLC for a certificate of public good, pursuant to 30 V.S.A.§§ 248 and 8010, authorizing installation and operation of a 500 kW (AC) solar electric net-metering system in West Fairlee, Vermont

No. 20-3530-NMP

State of Vermont, Public Service Board

January 20, 2021

Kevin Anderson Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (for Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)

Erin C. Brennan, Esq. Vermont Department of Public Service (for Vermont Department of Public Service)

Kimberly K. Hayden, Esq. Paul Frank + Collins PC (for West Fairlee Stevens Solar LLC)

Maxwell I Krieger, Esq. Vermont Division for Historic Preservation (for Division for Historic Preservation)

ORDER LIFTING STAY

MICAH HOWE, HEARING OFFICER

This case involves an application filed with the Vermont Public Utility Commission ("Commission") by West Fairlee Stevens Solar LLC ("Applicant") for a certificate of public good, pursuant to 30 V.S.A. §§ 248 and 8010, for a 500 kW (AC) group net-metering solar electric generation system (the "Project") in West Fairlee, Vermont.

In this Order, I lift the stay previously imposed in an order issued in this proceeding on December 9, 2020.

I. Procedural History

On November 30, 2020, the Commission issued a memorandum finding that the application was administratively incomplete because it failed to include testimony addressing the Project's effect on archaeological resources.¹

On December 2, 2020, the Applicant filed an email between the Applicant and the Vermont Department of Historic Preservation ("DHP") in which the Applicant agreed to conditions proposed by DHP to ensure that the Project, which is proposed on an archaeologically sensitive site, will not result in an undue adverse effect on archaeological resources ("DHP Conditions"). The DHP Conditions would require the Applicant to complete an archeological investigation of the Project site and to complete any mitigation found necessary by the investigation before construction of the Project. Any required mitigation would be subject to DHP approval. The DHP Conditions state that "[m]itigation may include but is not limited to further site evaluation, data recovery, redesign of one or more proposed Project components, or modification of the buffer zone boundaries or the specific conditions that refer to the same."^[2]

On December 9, 2020, I stayed the proceeding, including the 30-day period for...