Alternative Energy Projects? "Yes" . . . . . Near My House? That's a Hard "No."

A 12-year struggle in Bennington illuminates how wealthier non-residents, often with second homes, are key players in opposition groups.

Introduction

Vermont’s commitment to clean energy is undeniable, with over 90% of its electricity from renewables and bold targets to phase out fossil fuels in heating, transportation, and energy by 2035.

Yet, local opposition to projects like the Bennington solar farm, detailed in a June 19, 2025, VTDigger article, reveals a significant challenge: balancing statewide climate goals with community concerns, particularly from out-of-state homeowners who own often-vacant second homes.

These property owners, a notable force in scenic rural areas, frequently lead resistance to renewable energy projects, raising questions about fairness and priorities. This report uses the Bennington case to explore how Vermont can find the right balance between advancing clean energy and addressing local objections, with a focus on the role of non-resident homeowners.

The Bennington Solar Farm: A Case Study in Tension

The Bennington solar farm controversy encapsulates Vermont’s clean energy conundrum. The proposed 27-acre project faced opposition for violating town zoning rules, threatening scenic hillsides visible from tourist sites like the Bennington Battle monument, and potentially worsening PFAS contamination in an already impacted area. Residents also criticized the settlement process for allegedly breaching Vermont’s Open Meeting Law, lacking transparency before the June 3, 2025, vote. Developer lawsuits, risking $1.5 million in American Rescue Plan Act funds, added pressure, as noted in a May 26, 2025, affidavit.

While these concerns are valid, the opposition’s composition is telling. A significant portion comes from out-of-state homeowners, many of whom own second homes that remain vacant for much of the year. According to a 2023 Vermont Housing Finance Agency report, approximately 20% of homes in Bennington County are seasonal or recreational, with over 70% of these owned by non-residents, primarily from New York and Massachusetts.

These properties, often unoccupied except during summer or ski seasons, amplify aesthetic objections, as owners prioritize preserving the picturesque views that attracted them to Vermont.

The Role of Out-of-State Homeowners

Out-of-state homeowners wield disproportionate influence in Vermont’s rural communities, particularly in scenic areas targeted for renewable projects. A Sierra Club article notes that wealthier non-residents, often with second homes, are key players in opposition groups, valuing Vermont’s rural charm over energy infrastructure.

In Bennington, concerns about the solar farm’s visibility from tourist attractions align with these priorities, as non-residents seek to protect the aesthetic appeal of their part-time retreats. This dynamic is not unique to Bennington; similar patterns appear in Shaftsbury and Windham County, where groups like Vermonters for a Clean Environment have rallied against wind and solar projects.

The vacancy rate of these homes—often empty for 8–10 months annually—raises equity concerns. While year-round residents bear the economic and environmental impacts of climate change, part-time owners, who contribute less to the local economy outside property taxes, often drive resistance to projects critical for Vermont’s sustainability goals. This imbalance prompts a key question: how should the state weigh the preferences of non-residents against the needs of full-time Vermonters and the planet?

Vermont’s Clean Energy Imperative

Vermont’s energy profile is a point of pride, with hydroelectric power generating 57% of electricity and wind 13% in 2023, per the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Policies like the Renewable Energy Standard (H.289, 2024) and the Clean Heat Standard (Act 18, 2023) aim for 100% renewable electricity by 2035, supported by initiatives like the Clean Energy Development Fund. Advocacy from groups like Renewable Energy Vermont emphasizes equity, ensuring rural and low-income communities benefit from the transition. However, achieving these goals requires expanding solar and wind infrastructure, which inevitably encounters local resistance, particularly in areas prized by non-residents.

Finding the Right Balance

To reconcile clean energy ambitions with local concerns, especially those amplified by out-of-state homeowners, Vermont must prioritize strategies that equitably balance competing interests. Below are key considerations and proposed solutions:

1. Environmental Safeguards as a Baseline
   Concerns about PFAS contamination in Bennington are legitimate, given Vermont’s environmental ethos. The right balance involves rigorous, independent assessments to ensure projects do not exacerbate existing pollution. For instance, the 2018 hydrologist study in Bennington found low risk of PFOA spread, but public skepticism persists. Mandating transparent, third-party environmental reviews for all renewable projects could build trust, addressing concerns from both residents and non-residents while advancing clean energy.

2. Aesthetic Mitigation with Innovation
   Out-of-state homeowners often prioritize scenic preservation, as seen in Bennington’s opposition to the solar farm’s visibility. Innovative solutions, like vertical solar panels or agrivoltaics (combining solar with farming), can minimize visual and land-use impacts. A Vermont Technology Alliance article highlights a vertical solar pilot in Vermont, which could serve as a model. The state should incentivize such technologies in areas with high seasonal home ownership, balancing aesthetic concerns with energy needs.

3. Transparent and Inclusive Processes
   The Bennington settlement’s alleged Open Meeting Law violation fueled distrust. To counter this, Vermont should enforce strict transparency protocols for project approvals, with mandatory public comment periods accessible to both residents and non-residents. Online platforms could ensure part-time owners participate without dominating discussions, leveling the playing field for year-round Vermonters.

4. Prioritizing Equity in Decision-Making
   The influence of out-of-state homeowners, whose properties are often vacant, skews priorities toward aesthetic concerns over climate urgency. Vermont could explore weighted decision-making models, giving greater voice to full-time residents who face the daily realities of energy costs and climate impacts. For example, local referendums on renewable projects could require a minimum percentage of votes from year-round residents, ensuring their needs are not overshadowed.

5. Regional Planning for Fair Distribution
   To reduce conflicts, Vermont should develop a statewide siting plan that distributes renewable projects equitably, avoiding over-concentration in areas with high non-resident ownership. The Public Utility Commission could prioritize sites with lower aesthetic or environmental impacts, such as brownfields or industrial zones, while offering tax incentives to communities hosting projects.

The Cost of Inaction

Failing to find this balance risks stalling Vermont’s clean energy progress. Opposition driven by out-of-state homeowners, while rooted in valid concerns, can delay projects critical to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. For context, Vermont’s 2023 emissions from heating and transportation remain significant, and scaling up renewables is essential to meet 2035 targets. Each delayed solar or wind project extends reliance on fossil fuels, disproportionately harming low-income and rural Vermonters who lack the resources to adapt to climate impacts. And with Vermont being the 4th most forested state in the country, a balance is achievable.