For immediate release
April 24, 2012
Contact
Gabrielle Stebbins
Renewable Energy Vermont
gabrielle@revermont.org
802 229-0099
More than 100 renewable energy and associated Vermont businesses urge legislative action
MONTPELIER, Vt — Demonstrating the size and diversity of Vermont’s renewable energy economy, more than 100 businesses that work in the renewable energy industry are urging legislative action before the session closes on a package of clean energy legislation.
In a letter led by Renewable Energy Vermont to Governor Peter Shumlin, Lieutenant Governor Phil Scott, and lawmakers, the businesses urged passage of five House-passed, bipartisan bills, stating that “our industry is growing andit is strong,” but “to remain competitive, we need to continue to foster a strong local industry.”
The letter continued, “Vermont has worked hard to develop our in-state, clean energy economy. Now is not the time to let this effort slide, letting the wave of the future move on to other states and countries. Predictability and pro-growth policies are vital to our continued success.”
Large renewable energy companies such as groSolar, Northern Power Systems, AllEarth Renewables, Sunward Systems, Draker Laboratories, and NRG Systems collectively employ hundreds of Vermonters directly. But the letter also included dozens of small, medium and large businesses that derive work from Vermont’s clean tech industry, including local installers from all corners of the state, large construction companies such as J.A. Morrissey Inc. and Engineers Construction Inc. (ECI), electrical companies,contracting companies, developers, and design and marketing firms.
“The wide appeal for legislative progress demonstrates the depth and breadth of Vermont’s renewable energy economy. Everyday our business works with dozens of other Vermont businesses. When we are busy, they are busy. But we need to have pro-growth policies in Vermont that make this economic activity possible,” said Brett Pingree of Northern Power Systemsin Barre.
Vermont recently ranked number one in the nation for “green jobs,”but industry experts say that study misses thousands of businesses engaged in the state’s renewable energy economy.
“Vermont would do well to look just across its borders and see the growth and job creation from other states’ pro-renewable energy policies. We can’t take our in-state industry for granted,” said Ben Gordesky of DC Energy Innovations in North Hero. “The best part of our industry is that not only do we create good jobs, we also make available to Vermonters clean, renewable energy for decades to come.”
The text of the full letter and signers is here:
An Open Letter toVermont Elected Officials
Dear Vermont Leaders,
As renewable energy businesses and businesses that derive work from the renewable energy sector, we ask for your attention to energy legislation before the end of the session.
Our industry is growing and it is strong. Vermont just dropped below 5% in unemployment, with a hefty portion of that being green jobs. Vermont has worked hard to develop our in-state, clean energy economy. Now is not the time to let this effort slide, letting the wave of the future move on to other states and countries. Predictability and pro-growth policies are vital to our continued success. To remain competitive, we need to continue to foster a strong local industry.
Before this legislative session ends, please ensure passage of:
· House passed net metering bill (H. 475)
· House passed Property Tax Certainty for State and Renewables Developers and Customers (H. 679)
· House passed CEDF funding (H. 782)
· Senate passed streamlined permitting for small existing hydro (S. 148)
· House passed “Energy Bill” (H. 468)
We recognize how busy this time of year is. Please: ensure that Vermont continues to build towards our collective future of locally-made, clean energy.
Thank you for your consideration,
Acorn Energy Co-op, Middlebury
Advanced Solar Heating Systems, Rutland
Aegis Wind, Waitsfield
AllEarth Renewables, Williston
Alumni Solar, South Hero
Backspring Renewables, Middlebury/Weybridge
Biebel Builders, Windsor
Black River Produce, North Springfield
Bobcat Café, Bristol
Bright Lite Electric, Windsor
Building Energy, Williston
CalcoGreen LLC, Waitsfield
Catamount Solar, East Montpelier
Coburn’s General Store, South Strafford
Community Hydro, Plainfield
Concept 2, Morrisville
Cottage 10, Hinesburg
Craftsbury Outdoor Center, Craftsbury
CRL Solar LLC, Hartford
Daniels Transportation, White River Junction
DC Energy Innovations, North Hero
Draker Labs, Burlington
E&S Electric, Colchester
Encore Redevelopment, Burlington
Energy Co-op of Vermont, Colchester
Engineers Construction Inc., Williston
Forward Thinking Consultants, Richmond
Foxfire Energy, Chittenden
Fresh Tracks Capital, Shelburne
Friends of the Sun, Manchester
Gary MacArthur Solar, Marlboro
Graybar, Rutland
Green Earth Energy, Brandon
Green Energy Times, Bradford
Green Toolbox Consultants, Warren
Green Works Solar Store, St. Johnsbury
Grennon’s Solder Works, Bristol
GroSolar, White River Junction
GWR Engineering, Charlotte
Hand Energy Services, Manchester
Hand Sun and Solar, Manchester
Harvey|Severence, Burlington
Hebert Excavation, Williamstown
Hempfully Green, Putney
Hidden Springs Maple, Putney
Independent Power, Hyde Park
Integrated Solar, Brattleboro
Interstate Mountain Company, South Hero
J. A. Morrissey, Williston
J.W. & D.E. Ryan Inc., Vergennes
James T. Davis Construction, Arlington
L.W. Seddon LLC, Montpelier
Landworks, Middlebury
Larkin Realty, Burlington
Leunig’s Bistro, Burlington
Livingston Farm Landscape Products, Bristol
LN Consulting, Winooski
Maclay Architects, Waitsfield
MC Autoworks , Strafford
Mergus Analytics LLC, Jericho
Metruk’s Electrical Contracting, Underhill
Northeast Wind (a VERA business), Waterbury
Northern Power Systems, Barre
NRG Systems, Hinesburg
One Sun Vermont, South Hero
Peck Electric, Williston
Phelps Engineering, Middlebury
Pill-Maharam Architects, Shelburne
Points North Energy, Stowe
Positive Energy, Poultney
Prudent Living, Windsor
PV Solar Associates, Berlin
Real Goods Solar, Montpelier
ReArch Company, South Burlington
ReKnew, Hartford
Renewable Energy Vermont, Montpelier
ResTec, Bridgewater Corners
Rich Keus Construction, Arlington
Robert’s Plumbing and Heating, Milton
RSD Companies Inc., White River Junction
RSD Leasing, White River Junction
RSD Transportation, White River Junction
RSD Warehouse, White River Junction
Saxtons River Solar Electric, Saxtons River
Small Dog Electronics, Waitsfield
Sojourns Community Health Clinic, Westminster
Solar Pro, Arlington
Solarfest, Tinmouth
Solartech, Sutton
Solarwind Electric, Bradford
Soulmate Socks, Strafford
Southridge Neighborhood Association, Middlebury
Stephanie Lahar and Associates LLC, Montpelier
Stone Soup Restaurant, Strafford
Suncatcher, Corinth
SunCommon, Waterbury
Sunrise Solar Services, Rutland
Sunward Systems, Vergennes
Sunwood Biomass, Waitsfield
Sustainable Energy Resource Group, Thetford Center
Sustainable Solutions, Marshfield
Teamswork, Shelburne
Timberline Electric Inc., Williston
Triland Partners, Williamstown
TruexCullins Architecture + Interior Design, Burlington
Twin Birches Ltd, Middlebury
USA Solar Store, Perkinsville
Vermont Energy Investment Corporation, Burlington/Barre
Vermont Solar Engineering, Burlington
Vesco Energy Services, South Burlington
VT Solar, Burlington
Watson Research, Fairfield
West Windsor West Corp., Windsor
Willis North America, Burlington
Wolfe Energy, Strafford
Woodstock Aqueduct, Woodstock
Permalink |
It would be interesting to see an analysis of what other methods some of the energy companies listed here use to influence the political process. Perhaps an examination of those who are heavy hitters when it comes to political contributions such as Mr. Blittersdorf of NRG and All Earth Renewables who has contributed $140,000 to federal campaigns and soft money organizations since 2007 (source opensecrets.org Donor Lookup, $160,000 if you include Jan Blittersdorf’s donations) and $13,500 to state races in the 2010 election alone (source Common Cause Vermont Master Contributer Rollup). Or perhaps those groups that offer high paying positions to former politicians, such as Vermont Energy Investment Corporations $107,000 per year salary to Scudder Parker for “Consulting” (source VEIC 2010 Form 990 viewable through Guidestar.org). Perhaps including advocacy organizations that engage in the same conduct, such as High Meadows Fund’s employment of Gaye Symington for $80,000 ($105,420 including all compensation)(source High Meadows Fund Form 990 viewable through Guidestar.org).
Permalink |
A much more economically-viable and environmentally-beneficial measure to reduce CO2 would be increased energy efficiency. A 60% reduction in Btu/$ 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 mostly for the top 1% at the expense of the other 99%, 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
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/71771/energy-efficiency-first-renewables-later
Permalink |
You stated-”Those renewables would not be needed, if we use those funds for increased EE.”
And so then we can keep right on mining or blowing up mountains for the coal, fracking for natgas, mining for uranium and subsidizing all of those sources without any interference from those pesky renewables advocates?
Is this what you’re proposing? Seriously? Business as usual with a bit of conservation thrown in?
Where is the electricity that we will inevitably continue to use supposed to come from? You can’t conserve yourself out of some kind of continued production at a significant level. But business as usual, minus the amount that can be conserved? Best you can come up with?
Permalink |
Mr. Post isn’t serious about energy efficiency. He only seems to write about it in response to renewable energy proposals, and he omits to mention the tens of millions of dollars the state already puts into electric energy efficiency programs.
Aside from transportation, the state’s biggest need for energy efficiency is thermal, that is, heating and cooling buildings. There were several bills introduced in the Vermont legislature this year to support thermal energy efficiency, ranging from funding it through a tax on fossil heating fuels to requiring each seller of real property to disclose to prospective buyers the building’s energy performance.
But you don’t see Mr. Post pushing those bills or, if he disagrees with their particulars, coming up with real alternatives.
Permalink |
Townsend,
Below are some articles that show I am more serious about EE than RE.
Please read them. They have been available on THE ENERGY COLLECTIVE for some months, as are about 22 of my articles.
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/46652/reducing-energy-use-houses
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/71771/energy-efficiency-first-renewables-later
Permalink |
Rob,
The low hanging fruit is EE.
It should be done BEFORE RE for the reasons I stated.
The mining of coal, gas, nuclear, etc., would be less, if the US uses 50% less energy/$of GDP, as does Japan and Denmark, etc.
Permalink |
No one denies that conservation and efficiency are the low hanging fruit, but your answer seems to be that otherwise, beyond all possible C & E, that we can continue to use the same generation sources that we have been using, otherwise unabated.
First, this implies that you’re perfectly okay with the subsidies that flow to Coal, Oil, Nuclear and Gas (CONG) even though those industries would continue to be hugely profitable without them. Also with the fact that those generation sources have been artificially inexpensive over their entire usage histories because of the fact that they don’t bear the social costs of their use.
You also complain about the “subsidizing of renewables tax-shelters mostly for the top 1% at the expense of the other 99%” as if the subsidies for CONG don’t eventually flow to that 1% in amounts that make the subsidies for renewables look like chump change.
Yet not only are those generation sources already massively profitable, they are demonstrably a lot worse in terms of environmental impacts than the renewables, especially in the case of mountaintop removal coal, oil from tar sands and potentially from natgas fracking and uranium mining and spent fuel storage. This includes their impact on other natural environments and water resources as well as carbon footprint.
Those in the forefront of research about the impacts of energy use on climate change have generally agreed that not only do we need to use energy more efficiently, we need to switch ASAP to low carbon generation. In other words all of the above, not just one or the other.
So again I ask, what are you suggesting we do about continued generation, if not renewables?
Permalink |
Mr. Peters has it right when he says the biggest issue we face is thermal (though transportation should not be passed over).
The challenge with thermal is that it’s expensive (you need to spend money to save money); the incentives and financing mechanisms do not make it easy for middle-income folks to make these investments; and it’s not sexy. Sure, you’ll save 30% on your fuel costs, but you don’t get a panel on your roof that your neighbors can admire!
The thermal conversation is one that Vermonters need to engage in deeply. If we are to stay in our houses and be able to afford to live in VT, we need to reduce our heating fuel use – and the way you do that is to make significant investments in building retrofits, aka weatherization.
Permalink |
Liz,
You are absolutely right. And you make these investments BEFORE any RE systems are added to your house; their capacities (and capital costs) would be less. See my above comment.