Editor’s note: This op-ed is by Avram Patt, general manager of Washington Electric Cooperative, which serves over 10,500 member households and businesses in 41 Vermont communities.
Vermont has been discussing commercial-scale wind development for about 10 years. In 2005, Washington Electric Co-op announced our support of First Wind’s project in Sheffield and committed to purchasing a portion of the electricity.
We stuck our neck out on behalf of that project. We attended meetings and hearings in the Sheffield area, and wrote about it in our newsletter and elsewhere and discussed it at our member meetings. Members of WEC’s board of directors visited wind farms in other states and countries, talked to local people, and assessed for themselves what these projects looked like and how people felt about them. The majority of WEC members have supported our involvement, but we’ve also heard from some who don’t.
There has been a lot of misunderstanding and also misinformation about wind projects generally in Vermont. So I am writing to discuss not just the Sheffield project, but utility-scale wind development in general.
Let’s start by agreeing that wind towers are huge. In Vermont they must be located on certain ridgelines because that is where the wind resources are. There is no question that they are very visible and they change the landscape in their vicinity. They can be heard from some locations. Building a project is also a major construction event. It requires the clearing of some land and the building of narrow roads. As with any major construction, including a renewable-energy project, there is environmental impact.
With that said, here is what we also need to understand: By developing commercial-scale wind, we make a real difference for the planet. Intermittent sources like wind and solar cannot at this point supply all the power we need on the grid, but they can supply a whole lot more than we have now. Every kilowatt-hour generated by a wind tower is one that does not need to come from other sources. That is real progress, and wind can be major part of our future.
We can’t just do the small stuff. Vermonters are, in fact, generating their own power at their homes and businesses in increasing numbers, mostly with solar but also some wind. And small-scale commercial projects (2.2 megawatts or less) are being built around the state because of financial incentives created by our Legislature.
But we need to understand some equivalents: One wind turbine on a 400-foot tower at Sheffield has a capacity of 2.5 megawatts. There are 16 such turbines at Sheffield and that project will generate enough power for the equivalent of 16,000 homes. (The Lowell Mountain project now under construction is somewhat larger.) To generate as much power as just one of those large turbines, we would need to put up well over a thousand home-scale turbines, each on its own 100-foot tower. That’s around 20,000 100-foot towers to generate as much as the whole Sheffield project. Generating the same amount of kilowatt hours from a commercial solar energy project would take at least 400 acres of photovoltaic panels. That’s the reality, although it is very hard to imagine those numbers on Vermont’s landscape.
In coming years, we are likely to begin seeing a real move away from liquid fossil fuels, especially for transportation. While that’s a good thing for the environment, it could eventually increase Vermont’s demand for electricity by as much as 30 percent. If we truly want to move to cleaner energy sources, we need to do the small stuff, but we have to do some big projects too.
Mountains are not being blasted apart. Yes, there is blasting and land clearing during construction, whether it’s a wind farm or new development up the sides of mountains in our ski resort communities.
However, when all is said and done, a wind farm has a relatively small physical footprint. The 16-turbine Sheffield project involved the clearing of approximately 63 acres for all the turbines and the roads combined, of which about 39 acres are now being left to re-vegetate (this was already occurring when I was at the site in the fall). Much of the land has been used for logging and other purposes in generations past, and some of the new 16-foot-wide roads follow old logging roads. Wildlife returns after construction, as it has at Sheffield.
There have been planning and siting discussions about wind development for more than 10 years now. While it is understandable that Vermonters who only recently started considering this issue might think there is no planning involved, there was in fact a Wind Siting Consensus Building Project sponsored by the Department of Public Service in 2002. The final report, detailed descriptions of the sessions that were conducted under the auspices of the Woodbury Dispute Resolution Center, and other papers are all available on the department’s website under “Renewables.”
The process included people from regional planning commissions, several hiking clubs, environmental and forest advocacy groups, utilities, developers, and state officials. Vermonters should take a look at the maps the participants reviewed. They show exactly where the best wind resources in the state are, just based on meteorological data. When one eliminates any sites on land where such development is legally prohibited, there are fewer potential sites. After then eliminating locations that are not reasonably close to existing transmission lines, very few feasible sites are left.
These are the maps developers start with, and they have been publicly available for all to see for 10 years. Although full consensus on this issue is unlikely, the few locations where wind projects might be feasible are also no secret.
We have been debating wind in Vermont for years. The discussion has involved genuine public processes in addition to the years of public regulatory proceedings for specific projects. Wind projects are large, even the relatively small ones being built or considered in Vermont. We can call them “industrial” or not, but in my job I am confronted by the urgency of our planet’s condition and by our limited options. WEC moved away from nuclear power years ago. Although we buy power from Hydro Quebec, I am very aware of the impact of those massive dams and the hundreds and hundreds of miles of giant transmission towers that are needed to bring Vermont’s share to the border. As I said, our options and our time are limited.
So I am not afraid to say that, in addition to far-greater efficiency in our energy use, and in addition to a lot more small-scale solar, wind, and other renewable projects becoming highly visible all across our landscape, we are in need of some serious industrial solutions as well, and soon. That’s the harsh reality.
We can no longer afford not to look at where our power comes from. We do need to accept wind into a few selected places in our landscape and to understand what it actually does for us. We have accepted ski areas on some of our most prominent mountains and everything that comes with that. We have, in the past, accepted logging roads throughout our hills and forests almost everywhere, including at what are now wind sites. We should insist that any projects be developed to the highest environmental standards and have the least-possible impact. But we have to put the benefit on the scale of impacts as well, otherwise this is not an honest conversation.
We are going to have to change the face of the planet in small ways in order to stop the damage we have done and are continuing to do in our ever-more-desperate attempts to get at the Earth’s fossil fuels. The alternatives all have consequences, too, but I would rather live with those consequences.
Permalink |
Avram Patt,
Your plea for more wind turbines that are 459-ft high and have 373-ft diameter rotors (a football field is 300 ft long) on environmentally-sensitive ridgelines is leaving out a few items.
Ski slopes do not make noise 24/7/365, do not emit health-damaging infrasound and low frequency noise affecting people who reside, go to school, work and recreate within 1.25 mile = 2 kM from the turbines.
The energy produced is variable and intermittent, minimal during summer, so-so during spring and fall and mostly during the winter, and at all times mostly at night. About 10-15 % of the hours of the year there is no wind energy, because wind speeds are too low (less than 7.5 mph) to turn the rotors.
The energy on ridgelines is high cost (subsidized 9.5-10 c/kWh, per GMP; unsubsidized about 15c/kWh).
Wind energy is useless to businesses and households unless it is backed up by quick ramping gas turbines that ramp up when wind energy ebbs and ramp down when wind energy surges which happens at least 100 times per day. Such part-load-ramping operation wears out equipment sooner and is inefficient (just as a car) requiring more fuel/kWh and emits more CO2/kWh. In fact, the extra fuel and CO2 almost offset what is claimed by wind energy promotors, as shown by these 4 studies.
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/64492/wind-energy-reduces-co2-emissions-few-percent
http://www.clepair.net/IerlandUdo.html
http://docs.wind-watch.org/BENTEK-How-Less-Became-More.pdf
http://www.clepair.net/windSchiphol.html
http://www.clepair.net/Udo-okt-e.html
A rational person would buy CO2-free energy from Hydro Quebec at 6c/kWh, instead of somewhat-CO2-free wind energy for 2.5 times that price.
A rational person would not add environmental damage to the environmental damage done by HQ in Quebec.
What Vermont does with regard to global warming/climate change is so miniscule as to be unmeasurable.
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/69710/will-germany-make-global-warming-difference
Even if all of the US instantly disappeared, its “CO2 hole” would be filled by other nations in about 5 years, at current rates of CO2 increase.
The US has more than a 100-year supply of low-cost domestic natural gas, current price about $4.00/million Btus. It should be used in low-cost ($1,500/kW), 60+% efficient, combined-cycle gas turbines that emit 1/3 the CO2/kWh of coal plants and no particulates.
If Vermont keeps adding high-cost, ridgeline wind energy, and even higher cost solar energy to its energy mix, electric rates will increase more than they need to, which will adversely affect households and businesses, reduce tax revenues, and raise the prices of goods and services.
Vermont’s economy is teetering along at about zero growth, high-paying/good-benefit job creation is near zero, household budgets are overstressed, the housing market is in the tank.
Rational people would invest in energy reduction measures which would quickly ease the pressures on household and business budgets.
Permalink |
Mr. Post said, “Vermont’s economy is teetering along at about zero growth.”
This is inaccurate. Indeed, as the legislature’s economist pointed out in the latest revenue forecast, Vermont ranks 12th in the country (and 1st in the region) for job growth from its pre-recession peak and its recessionary low point (2.7%).
Permalink |
Yes, mountains are being blasted apart. The tops of the Lowell Mountains are being blown up. Almost every turbine is requiring huge cuts into the mountain, with 20 to 40 foot cuts. Vermont has never allowed the destruction of an intact ecosystem before, and the extent of the damage to the hydrology, wildlife and natural communities is at a scale that is shocking to the people who have seen it in person.
No, this is not your average construction site that looks bad but will look fine when it’s done. This is the entire length of an unfragmented ridgeline having the guts ripped out of it. Here’s a slide show of some of the damage
https://picasaweb.google.com/114098560210816181304/January192012?authkey=Gv1sRgCPz54Oa9ssThWw#5699456235782774514
We do not have to destroy our environment to save it.
Permalink |
Dough,
You are correct. Vermont’s economy is indeed doing somewhat better than much of New England; the recent flood damage was a setback from which many households and businesses have not recovered.
However, growth percentages are not back to pre-2007 levels and will likely remain lower than normal as a result of the Great Recession which was mainly a financial event, courtesy of Wall Street and its allies in the Congress, from which it will take at least a decade to recover.
This recovery will be slowed by events in Europe. which is retrenching.
The US and Vermont should do all they can to reduce their cost structures in all areas, including increasing energy efficiency.
Adding renewable energy that is 3-5 times more expensive than grid prices is counter-productive to economic growth, as it will raise electric bills of already-strapped households and businesses.
Renewables net job creation is a myth, because in a slow-growing economy, the subsidized job creation in inefficient, expensive-energy-producing renewables sectors will result in up to 3.7 times the job destruction in other sectors due to scarce capital being diverted from more productive uses, such as energy efficiency, and due to more expensive energy increasing the prices of goods and services.
http://www.american.com/archive/2011/april/on-green-energy-renewable-energy-fails-to-green-the-u-k-economy
http://www.aei.org/article/energy-and-the-environment/the-myth-of-green-energy-jobs-the-european-experience/
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/71771/energy-efficiency-first-renewables-later
Permalink |
Although I enjoy reading Willem Post’s contributions, I want to make clear that we are not related just so readers won’t wonder if there is a “Post family commenting machine”. Still, greetings, Willem.
Now, I have a great deal of respect for Avram’s work in the electric power debate. Yet, I have a couple observations on this article:
– first, I hate the euphemism “wind farms.” If anyone has ever lived on a farm or, at least, read Wendell Berry, farm as a place and a form of husbandry is fundamentally different than wind turbine concentrations. Folks who are interested in reading more about how corporate interests create benign sounding euphemisms to put a favorable patina on their actions might find it worthwhile to read Pat Parenteau’s article “Anything Industry Wants: Environmental Policy under Bush II, in Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum, Vol. 14:2, page 364.
– second, there has been considerable debate in Vermont history about the ski industry juggernaut, and not all of it is favorable. Just because the development of our mountainsides, with its accompanying real estate effects and its not always benign consequences, has occurred is no reason to discredit questioning the environmental consequences of wind farms … oops, I meant wind turbine emplacements.
Permalink |
Sadly, Avram brings us the corporate line, maybe not surprisingly since he is an employee of a utility. WEC, under his leadership has taken a huge gamble and invested in industrial wind. What becomes of that risk will fall at the feet and bank accounts of his customers.
The glowing irony of industrial wind development in Vermont is that at once it is hideously complex and so simple, so very simple.
Its complexity lies in a thorough response to three questions:
1) By how much does wind-generated electricity reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
2) What is the cost of the inevitable environmental damage?
3) How much electricity is produced from wind, is it dependable and how much does it cost?
We can wander endlessly through the thicket of estimations, calculations, disputation, exhortation and rhetorical bluster so for sanity’s sake let’s at least attempt to offer a concise summary response re the above.
1) Not much. Each project must be assessed on its own merits in order to make a fully accurate determination. The fundamentally correct response is, not much.
2) We have no clue because this is not required for approval of such projects. What is the worth of clean water, flood-protection, intact wildlife habitat and so on and so forth? We don’t know. No one has done the analysis. Want to see an example of this damage? Want to see what a “narrow” road is really like? Go to http://www.lowellmountainsnews.wordpress.com
3) Not a lot. Electricity flows when the wind blows, in other words, it’s not all that dependable. You have to build a lot to get a little. The cost? Expensive to build and with a short life span—25 years in the case of the permits recently granted by the Public Service Board.
And here’s the ‘simple’ part. We Vermonters do not have to tear up our mountains in order to reduce emissions and assure adequate supplies of electricity. There is an array of options to explore and employ before we begin blasting the mountains. Efficiency itself beats wind in each of the above–and it adds real jobs.
Simple, so very simple.
Permalink |
For a unique pespective on the wind debate I highly recommend this film available on Netflix: “The Last Mountain”. Watch it to the end.
Permalink |
Mr. Post refers multiple times to a study by LePair. This study and others that question wind’s ability to reduce emissions are fundamentally flawed. For an analysis of the LePair study, see http://www.awea.org/blog/index.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1699=13380 . There are many, many government and utility system operator studies in the U.S. and elsewhere that find that wind power substantially reduces emissions
of carbon dioxide. For an example of one such major study, see the Eastern Wind Integration and Transmission Study (EWITS) at http://www.nrel.gov/wind/systemsintegration/ewits.html . And there are also real-world empirical data on this question. For example, for Texas, DOE data show that wind and other renewables’ share of Texas’s electric mix increased from 1.3% in 2005 to 4.4% in 2008, an increase in share of 3.1 percentage points. During that period, electric sector carbon dioxide emissions declined by 3.3%, even though electricity use actually increased by 2% during that time. Similarly, DOE data for Colorado show that when wind jumped from providing 2.5% of the state’s electricity to 6.1% in 2007-08, CO2 emissions dropped by 4.4%, SO2 emissions by 6%, and NOx emissions by 6%. For both states, all other possible explanatory factors for the declines in carbon emissions, such as changes in the output of other resources, changes in electricity use or imports and exports, and others, were examined and ruled out as possible explanatory factors. In many cases these factors, such as increases in electricity use or shifts from natural gas to higher-emitting coal, were working against the emissions benefits that were achieved by wind energy, indicating that the emissions benefits of wind were likely even larger than they appear.–Tom Gray, AWEA
Permalink |
Tom,
You may not know about the Dr. Udo studies based on real-time, 1/4-hour operation data of the Irish grid. It shows that the CO2 reduction/kWh due to wind energy is very small compared to the claims by wind energy promotors.
I have sent the Udo studies to EireGrid personnel for their comments and talked with EireGrid personnel who admit:
- that the CO2 reduction due to wind is indeed less than claimed by the Irish government environmental agency, largely due to gas-turbine ramping at higher wind penetrations, and
- that CO2 issues are secondary, because of renewables mandates from Brussels which come with subsidies.
The below peer-reviewed studies are based on measured data and were performed by a group of mostly retired engineers, diploma-engineers, doctor-engineers, and engineering professors with decades of energy systems design/analysis experience.
Please study the method of the studies, or have someone do it for you, and comment after.
http://www.clepair.net/IerlandUdo.html
http://www.clepair.net/windSchiphol.html
http://www.clepair.net/Udo-okt-e.html
Permalink |
We must not forget that we’re all being motivated by the desire to preserve our environment yet sustain increasing power demand and grow the economy. This is a dilemma with which the green movement must come to terms, otherwise, we run the risk of climate change overtaking these important questions and making them irrelevant.
Although I’d like to claim them, those are not my words, although they are my sentiments. They are the words of environmental activist, debater and contrarian George Monbiot, who has much more to say about this dilemma here: http://www.monbiot.com/2011/05/05/our-crushing-dilemmas/
Permalink |
Paul,
What Vermont does with regard to global warming/climate change is so miniscule as to be unmeasurable.
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/69710/will-germany-make-global-warming-difference
Even if all of the US instantly disappeared, its “CO2 hole” would be filled by other nations in about 7-10 years, at current rates of CO2 increase.
The US has more than a 100-year supply of low-cost domestic natural gas, current price about $4/million Btus. It should be used in low-capital-cost ($1,500/kW), 60+% efficient, combined-cycle gas turbines plants that emit 1/3 the CO2/kWh of coal plants and no particulates.
A much more economically-viable and environmentally-beneficial measure to reduce CO2 would be increased energy efficiency. A 50% reduction in Btu/$ of GDP is entirely possible with existing technologies. Such a reduction would merely place the US on par with most European nations.
It would be much wiser, and more economical, to shift subsidies away from expensive renewables, that produce just a little of expensive, variable, intermittent energy, towards increased EE. Those renewables would not be needed, if we use those funds for increased EE.
EE is the low-hanging fruit, has not scratched the surface, is by far the best approach, because it provides the quickest and biggest “bang for the buck”, AND it is invisible, AND it does not make noise, AND it does not destroy pristine ridge lines/upset mountain water runoffs, AND it would reduce CO2, NOx, SOx and particulates more effectively than renewables, AND it would not require any distribution network buildouts, AND it would slow electric rate increases, AND it would slow fuel cost increases, AND it would slow depletion of fuel resources, AND it would create 3 times the jobs and reduce 3-5 times the Btus and CO2 per invested dollar than renewables, AND all the technologies are fully developed, AND it would end the subsidizing of renewables tax-shelters at the expense of rate payers, AND it would be more democratic/equitable, AND it would do all this without public resistance and controversy.
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/46652/reducing-energy-use-houses
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/61774/wind-energy-expensive
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/64492/wind-energy-reduces-co2-emissions-few-percent
Permalink |
As Steve Wright pointed out, there are far better ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions than devoting our mountain ridges to utility-scale wind.
According to their 2010 annual report, Efficiency Vermont was able to reduce electric demand at a cost of 4.1 cents per kilowatt-hour. At that rate, an investment of just $8 million would be sufficient to reduce demand by the same 21 MW that the Lowell project is expected to produce. (GMP is getting more than 5 times that amount — $45 million — in subsidies for the project.)
Rather than continuing to blindly embrace industrial wind, we should be devoting scarce subsidy dollars to things that will really make a difference — like weatherizing homes and businesses that heat with fuel oil. That would do a hell of a lot more than industrial wind to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and would also keep a lot more money from leaking out of the Vermont economy.
Permalink |
Steven,
Great points, and people would not be living in drafty, hard-to-heat houses, and the LIHEAP program would not need so much money, and people would have some energy savings in their pockets which they would quickly spend to buy essentials, thereby keep the economy humming in Vermont, instead of in the Middle East. This is not rocket science.
The less the government is involved in energy matters, the better off Vermont’s economy would be.
There are hundreds of Vermont bureaucrats keeping themselves busy administering and tweaking existing programs and thinking up new ones.
And some legislators want to be part of the act to show the folks back home they are making a difference.
At some point various follies will end, due to a lack of federal funds and taxpayer resistance to increased fees and taxes.
Permalink |
Tom,
Regarding interconnections, energy systems analyst Hubert Flocard (hubert.flocard@gmail.com) put together a graph of the simultaneous wind energy production of different nations in Europe and there was little of the canceling you mention, as the entire geographical area was experiencing the same weather.
The studies you site are based on modeling, statistics, assumed grid operations scenarios, weather/wind histories and forecasts, etc. Usually, they are performed by well-educated, experienced people who are paid by renewables promotors. Independent studies, i.e., not paid by renewables promotors, follow similar methodologies and, no surprise, have similar outcomes.
The AWEA, etc., agree that the ramping of gas turbines to accommodate wind energy to grids causes less reduction of CO2 emissions/kWh than they claimed, but, they say, it is only a few percent less, and then present studies, not based on fine-grained measured data, to back up their claims.
The dispute is about how much less. The EirGrid study, based on measured data and operating records of fuel consumption and energy production, show that at higher wind energy penetrations, it is at least 75% less than is claimed by wind energy promotors, i.e., almost no reduction of CO2 emissions due to wind energy.
There are four recent (last 2 years) studies of the Colorado, Texas, Irish and Dutch grids, based on published, real-time, grid operating data sets, that show almost no CO2 emissions reductions during higher wind energy penetrations.
The reason the studies did not exist earlier is because grid operators did not post the data.
Also, there are not more such studies because very few grid operators post the 1/4-hour, or 1/2-hour data necessary for accurate analysis, and the AWEA, etc., are actively involved to maintain the status quo.
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/64492/wind-energy-reduces-co2-emissions-few-percent
http://www.clepair.net/IerlandUdo.html
http://docs.wind-watch.org/BENTEK-How-Less-Became-More.pdf
http://www.clepair.net/windSchiphol.html
http://www.clepair.net/Udo-okt-e.html
Permalink |
Doug
Your retort to Mr. Post cites the latest revenue forecast, found below, but presents only one-half the relevant statistics from the report.
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/jfo/state_forecasts/2012-01%20January%20Forecast.pdf
Indeed, on pages 4 and 5 one can find that job growth from the recessionary low to last November has been 2.7%. While you referenced “job growth” from the pre-recessionary peak, you failed to provide the associated statistic from the report. It’s -2.0%. A negative 2% (as in job loss) from the peak to trough and a positive 2.7% from the trough to November, 2011 nets to a pretty flat profile, which factually describes and affirms Mr. Post’s statement that the “Vermont’s economy is teetering along at about zero growth.”
Permalink |
How can Vermont be “teetering along at about zero growth” if we’ve grown at 2.7% since the trough of the recession? Only by shifting the goalpost.
It was appropriate for Mr. Kavet to cite job figures from the pre-recession peak in his revenue forecast because we need to know if we’ve regained all the jobs lost. But this figure includes the depth of the fall.
The longer term figure is indeed negative, as were all but three states, since we haven’t fully recovered quite yet. But Vermont is closer to that mark than 39 other states. And that’s exactly the point. Vermont is growing faster than most states.
At this point, it is growth from the trough that matters most. That is, what has happened since reaching bottom? Sadly, there are nine states that have grown less than 1% since the trough. That might actually be considered “teetering along at about zero growth.” But I hardly think 2.7%, which is best in the region and much better than the national rate of 1.9%, can fairly be called “about zero growth.”
If you need more, try this.
Real per capita GDP growth 2007 – 2010 (latest data available): Vermont was 7th in the country, one of only 15 states that were positive, and best in the region.
Real per capita GDP growth 2009 – 2010: Once again, Vermont was 7th in the country at 3%.
We’ve just come through a long period where public officials spoke negatively about Vermont’s economic performance, regardless of the facts. It didn’t help then and it doesn’t help now.
Permalink |
Doug
Returning to your reference document, the Consensus Revenue Forecast, the year-over-year employment growth in Vermont (Table B, page 19) for 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 was -.4%, -3.2%, .1% and 1.8% respectively. Again, this trend line affirms Mr. Post’s observation that Vermont is “teetering along at about zero growth”.
Further, jumping to your additional measure to retort Mr. Post, real per capita GDP growth (a measure Mr. Post did not employ), the Consensus Revenue Forecast reports Vermont GSP growth for 2008, 2009, and 2010, at .4%, -2.3%, and 3.2%, and population growth (the numerator of your GSP per capita calculation), at .2%, .1%, and .2%, respectively. These population growth statistics are consistent with the U. S. Census finding of exceedingly low population growth in Vermont at 2.8% over the last decade versus 9.6% nationwide. If Vermont had anywhere near the national average in population growth, our GSP per capita profile (or unemployment rate as well) would not appear so favorable relative to other states. It’s more Vermont’s low population growth rather than strong GSP growth over recent years that allow a GSP growth per capita statistic for Vermont to appear relatively favorable to other states’.
Permalink |
Dough and Tom,
Thank you for the report. It is good, clear, and factual.
Much of Vermont’s “extra” economic growth has been due to its ability to trawl the federal bureaucracy for funds. Hauls (heists?) are announced as if landing a big fish. Manufacturing and housing are in the tank. The foliage season was less than great and the skiing season will be as well; they will adversely affect future economic growth, household and business incomes, and tax collections.
My above remarks regarding reducing Vermont’s cost structure, including by increased energy efficiency, point THE way forward, instead of making Vermont’s economy less efficient by adding high-cost renewable energy to the energy mix which gives utilities reasons to raise electric rates of households and businesses at exactly the time they can least afford it and which will increase the cost of goods and services higher than the would otherwise be.
Vermont’s efforts regarding CO2 reductions are 99.999999 % immaterial regarding global warming/climate change; they are strictly “feel-good” and the subsidies encourage crony-capitalism of the politically well-connected renewables oligarchy.
If the US were to instantly disappear, its “CO2 hole” would be filled by others in about 7-10 years, based on current CO2 increases.
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/jfo/state_forecasts/2012-01%20January%20Forecast.pdf