Streetlights

Do you go to town meeting, dutifully listen to the proceedings, and, every time a vote is called, revel in the democracy of it all? Why not take the next step in participation by asking some questions? The streetlight issue is the perfect opportunity.

Physics, chronobiology and health concerns are involved in the streetlight issue. On top of all that, democracy itself has been offended by streetlights in Underhill, which should trouble everyone, regardless of how they feel about the lights themselves.

What happened...

Through months of discussion about Green Mountain Power and Efficiency Vermont's streetlight campaign, the Energy Committee learned about GMPs program to install LED streetlights, LED blue light, health implications of lighting and street lighting, dark sky policy, and Underhill's past work to remove unnecessary streetlights. We learned that many cities have chosen to install warm lights, and some had removed lights of the cool white type that GMP wanted to install. The American Medical Association warns against installing lights of the type that GMP offers. (volt.org, IDA)

At the February 8, 2017 Energy Committee meeting (minutes) I made a motion to reject the new LED streetlights, and instead recommend removing some existing streetlights, while waiting for the technology to mature and for GMP to offer better equipment. The wording of the motion was "to recommend that the town wait for better lights before accepting to change streetlights, and authorize PB to point out good candidate lights for removal, and perhaps one addition at Park Street and River Road. PASSED UNANIMOUSLY".  (audio) Committee members Jerry Adams, Peter Bennett, Nicole Bourassa, and Peter Duval all voted in favor. The meat of this motion concerned the removal of streetlights.

This is where things started to go wrong...

Peter Bennett, the Energy Committee's chair, did not relay this recommendation at the February 14, 2017 Selectboard meeting (minutes;video). The Selectboard went ahead with leasing 4000k LED streetlights from GMP, even without knowing all of the costs associated with the project.

And then democracy really took a hit...

At the March 8, 2017 Energy Committee meeting, Peter Bennett altered the meaning motion of the new streetlights for the  February 8, 2017 final minutes.  This is further discussed in a  May 10, 2017 letter to the Energy Committee and copied to the Selectboard. The Selectboard authorized signing the lease agreement May 23, 2017.

The revision of the minutes is not acceptable for a public body. It undermines confidence in decision making and democracy.

It gets worse...

Zoning and the ULUDR

GMP and the Town made no effort to comply with the town's Unified Land-Use and Development Regulations, which require that "Lighting, if deemed necessary by the DRB in accordance with state and federal regulations, shall be restricted to the minimum required for security and safe operation." (ULUDR, 3.6.B.9) GMP and the Town did not obtain a zoning permit.

Efficiency Vermont wrote a street lighting guide, Improving Efficiency in Municipal Street and Public Space Lighting, which reminds us that the first, "most cost-effective step you can take to improve the efficiency of municipal outdoor lighting is to eliminate unnecessary lighting." (p. 5) And, "[i]n the past when energy was relatively cheap, municipalities erred on the side of more lighting rather than less. However, it is time to re-evaluate municipal outdoor lighting needs due to the higher costs of power, the carbon footprint of electricity production, and the value of making a more dark-sky-friendly environment." (p. 2) Efficiency Vermont did not to follow their own process for evaluating the street lighting in Underhill. (case examples, Shelburne removed half of its streetlights, p. 17)

There is no ambiguity about the regulation of outdoor lighting, as the "standards apply to all outdoor lighting installations in the Town of Underhill, with the exception of temporary holiday light displays..." (ULUDR, 3.11.B)

Indeed, the regulations could hardly be more specific when it comes to street lighting. "Street lighting shall not be provided except in the Underhill Flats Village Center District or where it is deemed necessary by the DRB..."(ULUDR, 3.11.C.5)

To review...

Many errors were made:
* Not transmitting the Energy Committee recommendation to the Selectboard;
* Altering the Energy Committee minutes;
* Not following the Efficiency Vermont guidelines;
* Not complying with the ULUDR;
* Not obtaining a zoning permit.

The result is more glare and more blue light, all night long in Underhill. To find out more about this problem, start by googling "intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells", "melanopic lighting", and "dark sky" There is also a distinct issue with LEDs, "blue light hazard", which is about intense point sources of blue light, similar to the hazard of watching an electric arc or looking at the sun. Concerned about screens, f.lux is a good place to begin.

Some questions that could be asked...
What steps will be taken to ensure that accurate minutes are recorded?
Why did the Selectboard continue with the lease agreement, after learning of the Energy Committee's objection?
What was the undepreciated value of the old leased streetlights?
What was the Efficiency Vermont incentive?
What is the undepreciated value of the new leased streetlights?
What is the annual cost of the streetlights?
How long would it take to pay down the undepreciated value of the new lights?
When will the lights that have not been approved by the Development Review Board be removed?