Department of Public Service Commissioner Elizabeth Miller, left, met with VPIRG leaders and canvassers on Thursday. VTD/Taylor Dobbs
In an effort to influence the state’s revised Comprehensive Energy Plan, the Vermont Public Interest Research Group presented state officials with 7,500 comment cards calling for 80 percent renewable electricity and heating fuel by 2030.
The VPIRG activists collected the comment cards in a door-to-door campaign across the state. The activists delivered the cards to Elizabeth Miller, the commissioner of the Department of Public Service, in a publicized meeting at her office.
Gov. Peter Shumlin has made the expansion of access to renewable energy a major priority of his administration. To that end, Miller has been charged with creating an energy plan likely to include a combination of wind, solar, hydro or biomass projects in the state of Vermont.
The primary purpose of the plan, as per the Vermont Energy Plan website, is to examine the state’s energy challenges and current energy sources.
VPIRG’s 7,500 fill-in-the-blank postcards were delivered a day before the July 15 public comment deadline. Miller said the Department of Public Service had received many comments prior to the deadline, and that most had “focused on in-state energy solutions, long-term energy security, along with the need to have an affordable [energy] portfolio.”
The cards all bore the same statements – written by VPIRG – with different signatures from residents throughout the state. Miller commended VPIRG, saying they do a “fantastic job of outreach and grassroots communication,” and said the comments would be considered as the administration drafts its energy plan.
Miller said an 80 percent renewable electricity portfolio appears to be attainable. She said 48 percent of electricity used in Vermont comes from renewable resources; 63 percent of that total comes from Hydro-Quebec, the rest comes from the state’s small solar and wind efforts, as well as biomass.
“We’re on a really good path that we just have to keep vigilant and keep moving on,” said Miller. Meeting ambitious renewable targets for transportation and heating energy will be more of a challenge, Miller said. Vermont has a long way to go to meet VPIRG’s goal of 80 percent by 2030.
“When you look at total energy usage statewide, heating is only about 5 percent renewable right now,” Miller said.
Though Shumlin has said he wants to increase the amount of renewable power in the state, his administration will not officially set a target until a draft of his comprehensive energy plan is released to the public in mid-August. The deadline for the final plan is Oct. 1. The Douglas administration prepared a draft “Comprehensive Energy Plan” in 2009, but it was never formally adopted. Shumlin says he is “revitalizing” the Douglas plan.
James Moore, clean energy program director for VPIRG, said the state needs to improve its energy standards to meet growing demand for renewable energy.
Dylan Zwicky, a VPIRG team leader, spent the early summer talking with Vermonters about future sources for electricity and fuels for transportation and heat. “Generally, all across the state, people want to see more renewable energy,” Zwicky said.
Many people have been turning to alternatives modes of travel such as public transit, carpools and bicycling, Zwicky said. Most of the Vermonters he interviewed, however, were less concerned about vehicular transportation.
Miller stressed that transportation will be an important part of the state’s energy plan. She said transportation costs are about 30 percent of Vermonters’ energy expenditures. Public transit, carpooling, more efficient vehicles, and even electric cars can be a part of the solution, she said.
“When you look at bringing transportation costs down, you have to look at several ways to do it,” Miller said.
Permalink |
I am opposed to nuclear power/weapons and especially the mendacious management and dangerous Entergy Vermont Yankee plant.
Permalink |
Mendacious is a good word to describe the slimy tactics of the greedy to slide instead of walk upright.
Permalink |
Peter and Alex, I couldn’t agree more!
I like the word mendacious, too. It describes the nuclear industry and the NRC perfectly.
I would refer you to the Huffington Post to read lots of good information on the nuclear industry and its faults. Any thread on Japan or the nuke plants in jeopardy in Nebraska will be informative.
Permalink |
I think a better approach would be Increased Energy Efficiency
The real issue regarding CO2 reduction is energy intensity, Btu/$ of GDP; it must be DECLINING to offset GDP and population growth. To accomplish this energy efficiency needs to be at the top of the list, followed by the most efficient renewables of which hydro power is the best and residential small wind is the worst, in fact, it is atrocious. EE is so good that it should be subsidized before any and all renewables, because it is much more effective per invested dollar.
Effective CO2 emission reduction policy requires that all households eagerly participate. Current subsidies for electric vehicles, residential wind, PV solar and geothermal systems benefit mostly the top 5% of households that pay enough taxes to take advantage of the renewables tax credits, while all other households are required to pay for them by means of fees and taxes or higher electric rates; the net effect is much cynicism and little CO2 reduction. Improved energy efficiency policy will provide much greater opportunities to many more households to significantly reduce their CO2 emissions.
Energy efficiency will have a much bigger role in the near future, as energy system analysts come to realize that tens of trillions of dollars will be required to reduce CO2 from all sources and that energy efficiency will reduce CO2 at a lesser cost and more effectively. Every household, every business can participate.
For example: there is a massive energy source right at our fingertips — but, so far, this resource remains largely untapped. This energy resource is available in every state, every city and every town, does not require mining and drilling and costly power plants, makes no noise, is invisible, does not harm the environment and fauna and flora and creates more jobs than renewables per invested dollar.
The majority of our existing building stock is old and most are inefficient buildings that are destined to be in service at least 25 years or longer. Reducing the energy that is normally wasted in existing buildings offers more potential for cost-effective energy savings and CO2 emission reductions than any renewables strategy.
Energy efficiency projects:
- will make the US more competitive, increase exports and reduce the trade balance.
- usually have simple payback periods of 6 months to 5 years.
- reduce the need for expensive and highly visible transmission and distribution systems.
- reduce two to five times the energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions and create two to three times more jobs than renewables per dollar invested; no studies, research, demonstration and pilot plants will be required.
- have minimal or no pollution, are invisible and quiet, are peaceful; no opposition groups demonstrating against them, something people really like.
- are by far the cleanest energy development anyone can engage in; they often are quick, cheap and easy.
- have a capacity factor = 1.0 and are available 24/7/365.
- use materials, such as for taping, sealing, caulking, insulation, windows, doors, refrigerators, water heaters, furnaces, fans, air conditioners, etc., that are almost entirely made in the US. They represent about 30% of a project cost, the rest is mostly labor. About 70% of the materials cost of expensive renewables, such as PV solar, is imported (panels from China, inverters from Germany), the rest of the materials cost is miscellaneous electrical items and brackets.
- will quickly reduce CO2 at the lowest cost per dollar invested AND make the economy more efficient in many areas which will raise living standards, or prevent them from falling further.
- if done before renewables, will reduce the future capacities and capital costs of renewables.
Motor Vehicles
Before embarking on heavily-subsidized, expensive electric vehicles that would be charged with electricity from CO2-producing fossil-fueled plants, some low-cost and quick measures to reduce CO2 are:
- high-efficiency diesel engines in passenger cars getting 40 mpg are widely used in Europe. This should be implemented in the US before PEVs; a fully mature technology, no-fingers-crossed situation and no subsidies.
- next hybrid/diesel-powered vehicles that get about 50 mpg; again a fully mature technology, no-fingers-crossed situation and no subsidies.
- next plug-in-hybrid/diesel-powered vehicles that have a 40-mile electric range; again a fully mature technology, no-fingers-crossed situation and no subsidies. The benefits are less diesel fuel consumption, but for at least the next 10-20 years more coal-generated power consumption to charge the hybrids, until renewables and natural gas become a greater percentage of US power.
- improving worldwide mpg of future gasoline-powered vehicles. This is an on-going effort that should be accelerated with subsidies. Cars with high mpgs usually are small and low-cost. If tens of millions/yr are sold worldwide, it will have a major impact on reducing CO2.