Large solar proposal in Chester gets a public airing

By Shawn Cunningham
© 2025 Telegraph Publishing LLC

It’s ironic that a glitch in the video conferencing system at Town Hall delayed a meeting Monday about a large solar field proposed for 14 acres along Route 103 south in Chester, but Planning Commission members found a workaround and the presentation went on, albeit late.

Thomas Hand, of MHG Solar, which has developed a number of solar generation fields, told those in attendance that MHG subsidiary Savage Solar LLC is applying to the state Public Utility Commission to build a 2.7 megawatt facility in Chester because the site has everything they look for.

Hand said the cornfield south of the American Legion has easy access for construction, is flat and is close to the electric grid with three-phase power. He also noted that much of the field is screened from view by trees along Route 103 and by the Williams River and the Vermont Railway.

In response to a question about the companies involved, Hand said both are Vermont corporations headquartered in Manchester. He said subsidiaries of MHG have developed a number of solar fields and that just that day had turned on a 1.7 MW field in Barnet. They also have fields under construction in Windsor, Barre and North Rutland. He noted that the electricity generated in Chester would be sold to Green Mountain Power.

While the audience was generally favorable toward solar projects in general and the Savage project in particular, several people expressed concerns with particular portions of the plan, especially its exposure to flooding and the environmental damage that could result.

Planning Commission member Scott MacDonald said he is concerned with putting 7,000 solar panels in a flood plain, where logs, trees and even sheds have been carried by what he termed “massive amounts of energy.”

A handout with particulars about the project said that the panels would be 1 foot above the base flood level, which Hand said was the 100-year flood level. Hand told the audience that his business had applied for and received a flood permit from the state of Vermont by  looking at the elevations and velocity of water and demonstrating to the state that flooding won’t damage the racks that holds the solar panels.

Chester resident Randy Miles asked who will pay for the cleanup if the field was destroyed in a flood and who would conduct the cleanup when it no longer operates.  Hand said that the Public Utility Commission requires such installations to put money aside with the PUC to ensure there are resources to decommission such projects. He also noted that those funds are beyond the reach of creditors should the company go bankrupt.

“I wouldn’t say there’s a zero chance of flood damage,” said Hand but, he continued, the design is as resistant as possible to the forces that come along.

Miles also asked if Green Mountain Power pays to maintain the solar farm and would it end up as a charge on his utility bill.

“GMP is not involved at all, they just pay for the power,” said Hand who pointed to the need for a long term contract with GMP to get the financing for the project.

‘Filtered views’ vs. screening and tariff uncertainty

Another topic of concern is the appearance of the field from Route 103. Planning Commission Chair Hugh Quinn said that the project description indicates that the view remains screened when leaves drop in the fall. He noted that most of those trees are deciduous;  only some evergreens.

Hand said the field is not fully screened but offered a “filtered view.”

MacDonald that the length of Route 103 from which a passerby could see the field is about 1,000 feet and asserted that adding screening to that area should not be a big problem.

Asked if the current uncertainty around tariffs could make the project unfeasible, Hand said, “Yes, absolutely.”

He noted that the United States doesn’t use Chinese panels because they are already heavily tariffed, but they come from many other countries and it’s difficult to know what the future holds.

“This is the most difficult environment we’ve ever built in,” said Hand.

Input, but not much impact

While the town and the public may ask questions about the project and make suggestions, state law has established that Chester has little to no authority over the project and that’s reflected in the town’s Unified Development Bylaws:

Development associated with utility, energy or telecommunications infrastructure that receives a Certificate of Public Good from the Vermont Public Utilities Commission is exempt from these bylaws.

Chester Town Planner Preston Bristow told the audience that while the PUC will take comments from the public – including the Town of Chester and Mount Ascutney Regional Planning —  it is not obliged to consider them. “They say thank you very much for your comments and do what they want,” said Bristow.

MARC Executive Director Jason Rasmussen said that the town and MARC could intervene in a more formal way with the PUC.