Campbell delays S.30 vote until Tuesday, citing Wolfe’s threat, desire for full Senate vote

Senate President Pro Tem John Campbell

Senate President Pro Tem John Campbell. VTD/Alan Panebaker

Updated at 10:08 a.m. on March 21, 2013.

Senate President Pro Tempore John Campbell, D-Windham, said that the Vermont Senate is delaying a floor vote on the contentious energy regulation bill S.30 until next Tuesday.

The reasoning behind his decision, he said, is twofold: He wants all senators to be able to vote, and he feels personally compelled to vote on the bill because of an email from an influential renewable energy businessman and member of the Democratic Party, which was made public by VTDigger earlier this week.

“Quite honestly, because of that letter being put in Digger … if I don’t vote on this thing, it looks like I actually paid attention to this threat that was put forward,” he said. “I just won’t do that. That’s everything that’s wrong about the system.”

The letter Campbell referenced was sent by Jeffery Wolfe, who founded the large-scale solar company groSolar and sits on the national advisory board for the Union of Concerned Scientists.

In that email, Wolfe wrote: “John, I’ve supported you for a lot of races. But if you support this bill, not only does that support end, but I will help recruit and support opposition to you in the next election, and will put my money where my mouth is.”

Sitting in the Senate’s most powerful office, Campbell told VTDigger that because of Wolfe’s comments he feels “it’s imperative” that he votes on the bill.

This week, Campbell is presiding over the the Senate for Lt. Gov. Phil Scott who is away, which means Campbell can’t vote on the bill unless there is a tie.

Campbell said he supports the Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee, which passed the bill out to the Senate floor.

Therefore, he supports the legislation.

“And that may cost me my seat,” he said. “It very well may cost me my seat, and I’m willing to do that. The fact of the matter is: I don’t like bullies … I really feel if I’ve got to get up in the morning and look at myself in the mirror, I’ve got to make decisions that I think are best for Vermont and our future.”

Campbell said that he supports renewable energy “100 percent,” but he wants to ensure that new projects are sited in a manner that is not destructive to Vermont’s environment.

“Any time you get off of oil, you are doing something good,”he said. “But in our rush to do that, are we forsaking other really important things about this state? And I think that question needs to be asked.”

Although Campbell hasn’t yet identified any donations from Wolfe, he said he would return any funds that he has received.

“I’m reviewing my campaign finances to see just how much he’s given to me because I will be sending his checks back,” Campbell said.

“I always tell people if you make a contribution, please understand you are not buying access to me because you’ll have access anyways. And you are not buying my vote,” he added.

Clarification: John Campbell’s office said the Senate President Pro Tempore misspoke on Wednesday. Sen. Dick Sears will not be attending meetings for the remainder of the week; he will be busy on Tuesday and Wednesday next week, and Campbell rearranged the floor schedule for Sears next week, not this week. 

Andrew Stein

Leave a Reply

72 Comments on "Campbell delays S.30 vote until Tuesday, citing Wolfe’s threat, desire for full Senate vote"

Comment Policy

VTDigger.org requires that all commenters identify themselves by their authentic first and last names. Initials, pseudonyms or screen names are not permissible.

No personal harassment, abuse, or hate speech is permitted. Be succinct and to the point. If your comment is over 500 words, consider sending a commentary instead.

We personally review and moderate every comment that is posted here. This takes a lot of time; please consider donating to keep the conversation productive and informative.

The purpose of this policy is to encourage a civil discourse among readers who are willing to stand behind their identities and their comments. VTDigger has created a safe zone for readers who wish to engage in a thoughtful discussion on a range of subjects. We hope you join the conversation.

Privacy policy
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Rolf Mueller
3 years 4 months ago

Oh, the contradictions.
Campbell says:
“I always tell people if you make a contribution, please understand you are not buying access to me because you’ll have access anyways. And you are not buying my vote”

Then why does he say:
“I’m reviewing my campaign finances to see just how much he’s (Wolfe) given to me because I will be sending his checks back”

Julie Hansen
3 years 4 months ago

I appreciate the response. I think I understand what Mr.Mueller means about a contradiction. Why would he have to send the money back if his vote were not for sale in the first place? Or did I miss something?

Either way, I like the response. Thank you, Mr. President Pro Tem.

Patrick Cashman
3 years 4 months ago

If you look at followthemoney.org which aggregates campaign finance reports, it doesn’t appear Mr. Campbell received any money from Mr. Wolfe. Mr. Wolfe and his spouse, however, do appear to be large supporters of Governor Shumlin. Which from my perspective may be a factor in why Mr. Wolfe would prefer these matters be decided wholly by a board chosen by the governor without the requirement to work with effected towns.

In the end however Mr. Wolfe’s message is clear: He pays good money for politicians and expects them to perform when tasked.

3 years 4 months ago

Patrick,
Exactly right, and it has been going on for about 10 years. It is strictly done to build RE businesses that are unsuitable for Vermonters. See my above comment.

Rob Macgregor
3 years 4 months ago

Yeah, except that Governor Shumlin hasn’t appointed anyone to the PSB during his term as governor. All 3 members have been on board for many years, and Chairman Voltz was appointed by Gov. Douglas, who opposed utility scale wind.

John Greenberg
3 years 4 months ago

And re-appointed by Peter Shumlin.

3 years 4 months ago
Regardless Mr. Wolfe’s motivations I find the following a perfectly fine statement: “John, I’ve supported you for a lot of races. But if you support this bill, not only does that support end, but I will help recruit and support opposition to you in the next election, and will put my money where my mouth is.” I have made the same basic statement a number of times. Someone vying for political office always needs three things from us: time, money and vote. Why shouldn’t I be able to tell an officeholder who is doing something I totally disagree with (such… Read more »
Don Peabody
3 years 4 months ago

Which is why it would be good to take private money out of political campaigns.

3 years 4 months ago

But 100% public financing will never happen.

These contributing folks LIKE the system, because it pays for them, and THEY call the shots.

Kathy Leonard
3 years 4 months ago
Rama I understand what you say but would you choose to do so in a published opinion piece? Given the division industrial wind is causing Vermont, Jeff Wolff’s choice of going public with this simply threw gas on the fire. Industrial wind is dividing neighbors, communities, environmentalists and preservationists around this planet. Going into an uncertain climatic future, THIS is the biggest shame. Coming from Wolff, the letter appears to spread the poisoned well of opinion on industrial wind into that of solar, which saddens me because it was a Solar Home Tour at Jeff’s home that prompted us to… Read more »
3 years 4 months ago
Kathy, I wear my politics on my sleeve – yes, I would say this in public. I’ve stated it before in both verbal and written communications. If I see a politician doing something I view as really, really bad (such Welch still lying about ACORN and his willingness to join his radical right wing buddies in congress in an assault on a group who’s only crime was to openly advocate for the politically disempowered), and I hope to get others to act on that information … why wouldn’t I make it a public statement? Don Peabody is correct in that… Read more »
Cecile Johnston
3 years 4 months ago

Funny, I read that same statement as a sort of temper tantrum that amounted to, “I’ll just go buy my own politician.”

Patrick Cashman
3 years 4 months ago
Rama, Interesting point. If money equals speech, then of course we should be free to direct our green speech to whomever we choose best represents our interests. However I would argue there is the matter of intent. Do you invest in certain politicians because they represent the views most agreeable to your own view, or are you investing with some expectation of quid pro quo? Mr. Wolfe appears to believe in the latter. Not saying it’s illegal, merely unseemly. And disturbing as someone so willing to petulantly display his dissatisfaction with the services provided in return for his cash can… Read more »
Tony Lolli
3 years 4 months ago

Kudos. That’s one in a row. Who’s next?

Richard Sears
3 years 4 months ago

Correction,
I am not out the rest of the week. I have meetings with members of Quebec Assembly next Tuesday and Wednesday and will not be here next Wednesday.

Bill Shouldice
3 years 4 months ago
I have been working in the Vermont State house for forty years, and have never seen anything like these Public threats that both Sen. Campbell and Doyle received. This is not the Vermont way and only corrupts the public advocacy process. The Vermont Legislature has had a long history of accepting input from the public and from advocates, They do not have staff and need that input and knowledge to make good decisions but these threats make me think that we no longer respect the process or the people who represent us. This is a shame because Vermont s process… Read more »
3 years 4 months ago

Bill,
See my below comment.

3 years 4 months ago
DO THE RIGHT THING: “Campbell said he supports the Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee, which passed the bill out to the Senate floor. “Therefore, he supports the legislation. “’And that may cost me my seat,’ he said. ‘It very well may cost me my seat, and I’m willing to do that. The fact of the matter is: I don’t like bullies … I really feel if I’ve got to get up in the morning and look at myself in the mirror, I’ve got to make decisions that I think are best for Vermont and our future.’” “Campbell said that… Read more »
Julie Hansen
3 years 4 months ago

Rama, it is one thing if an average citizen who perhaps gives $50.00 toward a candidate’s camp says he won’t support a campaign. It is quite another when the person making the threat has a great deal of money to throw into the mix. We have known this goes on in Washington, D.C. with oil, pharmaceuticals, and health insurance companies, but we have been hopeful that our state would not fall into that abyss.

3 years 4 months ago

Julie,
These RE folks are VERY determined to get at the overly-generous RE subsidies (they paid for a tunnel to the vault and do not want the vault moved), are claiming all sorts of energy systems nonsense to befuddle/mislead the public, because their RE businesses could not exist without the subsidies; to them it is life or death situation.

3 years 4 months ago
John, “Quite honestly, because of that letter being put in Digger … if I don’t vote on this thing, it looks like I actually paid attention to this threat that was put forward,” he said. “I just won’t do that. That’s everything that’s wrong about the system.” Some RE snakes are ganging up on you, but I know you to be a straight shooter with a good aim. I”ll do what I can. Wolfe’s threats are nothing short of outrageous (words like Gestapo, Mafia, Putsch come to mind), reveals RE tactics at its worst, may be OK in a banana… Read more »
3 years 4 months ago

Willem, its because of the common sense, undeniable and honest list of facts you present above that the opponents of S.30 are forced to rely on snake oil sales pitches such as: “We have to send a message….”.

Keep up the good work.

3 years 4 months ago

Thank you , Peter

John Greenberg
3 years 4 months ago

Could someone please clarify who made Jeff Wolfe’s letter public? Did Jeff Wolfe do so by publishing it as an op-ed in VT Digger? Or did John Campbell make it public?

Rob Macgregor
3 years 4 months ago
I made the unfortunate mistake of voting for Peter Galbraith during his first campaign for Senate, and when he proposed his bit of silly anti-wind legislation during the last session, I wrote him and told him that as a result of his ill considered stance on utility scale wind, that I would not be voting for him again. The only difference is that I was smart enough not to contribute anything to his campaign in the first place. As I said in a comment posted to one of the earlier stories about this mountain from a molehill, there certainly is… Read more »
Carl Werth
3 years 4 months ago

Politics as usual = two wrongs make a right?

David Zuckerman
3 years 4 months ago
As a legislator, I can say that I do not like threatening tactics regardless of who makes them, allies, or opponents to the position of the day. I have received plenty of emails about a variety of issues from people who say “if you vote for X, I will remember and will work to get you unelected next time”. I have to say…that is not the most effective argument that I receive. Typically facts and information are more helpful in determining the final way that I will cast my vote. I have also asked people who agree with me on… Read more »
3 years 4 months ago
David, I can’t help noticing that the word “respectful” appears a total of three times in your post. I also recall that when one of the major landowners hosting wind installations appeared before the citizens of a small town he had targeted for another one of these monstrosities, he requested beforehand that they maintain a “polite and respectful” dialogue. Something like that. This from an individual who was coming to town to make their children sick, kill wildlife, render their real estate worthless, etc. In each instance, what, exactly, is one supposed to respect? The degree of honesty involved? Such… Read more »
3 years 4 months ago

Ellin,
The word is euphemisms, i.e., NOT calling a spade a spade.

You will find in GMP, etc., press releases words like hosting, celebrating, ecstatic, wonderful, community wind, etc., regarding building ridge line IWT systems. Do those PR folk really think we are ALL idiots.

The PR people want to create a pseudo-feel-good reality exuding goodness and motherhood.

One wonders, whether such PR people are still connected to reality in their private lives.

3 years 4 months ago
David, Voting for S-10, is voting for inefficiency and higher energy prices. Local communities must have local control, not Montpelier command-control. It is part of being a Democracy. Here are some facts regarding wind energy on ridge lines. In Maine the capacity factor is about 0.25, vs 0.32 or better predicted by IWT developers. In Denmark and the UK the average life of wind turbines is 15-20 years versus 25 years claimed, without data, by IWT developers. Whereas, Lowell calculated its energy costs at 10 c/kWh, it will likely experience the same; less energy production, shorter lives which translates to… Read more »
Lance Hagen
3 years 4 months ago
Mr. Zuckerman, Let me add to the information provided by Mr. Post. If one assumes that when Lowell Mt. is generating power, Vermont avoids buying power from the grid. This means that we are avoiding the CO2 generated by the grid purchased power. Based on the power sources the makeup the New England grid, one can determine the amount of CO2 that is avoided. Over a year, this amounts to 64K tonnes of CO2. This sounds like a lot, until you realize the China emits this amount of CO2 every 3.4 MINUTES. So constructing wind turbines on Vermont ridge lines… Read more »
3 years 4 months ago
Lance, I agree with your thoughts, but you better be careful when raising the issue of China and the emission of CO2. The other night I posted reservations about the effectiveness of covering our state with wind turbines and solar panels as a way to lower CO2 levels. I went on to suggest that if we really want to do something about CO2 emissions, China and India needed to be convinced to stop building coal fired power plants. The World Resources Institute states that there are currently 1200 new coal fired power plants going to be built around the world.… Read more »
Avram Patt
3 years 4 months ago
The China argument has been made with increasing frequency by opponents of wind development in Vermont: Because Vermont is a small place, geographically and only with 600,000+ population, any wind turbines erected here “won’t make a difference.” It doesn’t really matter what Vermont does. That’s an argument I’m not used to hearing about Vermont’s place in the world. The logical follow-up question is then: Well, why then would we want to invest in more energy efficiency either, on top of everything we’ve already done? Since we’re so small, what difference would it make as long as they keep using energy… Read more »
Lance Hagen
3 years 4 months ago

Mr. Patt,

With all due respect, this is not a ‘troubling’ argument. It is just to put CO2 avoidance from wind turbine power in perspective.

With finite resources, Vermont could achieve better CO2 avoidance results if we applied these resources to better insulate homes and businesses to lower fuel oil consumption. Or provide some type of incentives to drive more fuel efficient vehicles or less mileage.

Wind turbines are just NOT the answer. They provide minimal CO2 benefit, but come with detrimental ‘baggage’

3 years 4 months ago
Avram, China is building a lot of IWTs, but its wind energy CF is dismal. See table. See my below comment. http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/169521/wind-turbine-energy-capacity-less-estimated Germany, onshore 0.187; dismal, but rising due to offshore IWTs Denmark, including offshore 0.251; rising due to offshore IWTs The Netherlands 0.228 The US 0.289; a high value due to excellent winds in the Great Plains. Texas 0.225 Ireland 0.283; Ireland and Scotland have the best winds in Europe. New York State 0.249 Spain 0.241 China, 2012 0.166; dismal Australia 0.300 UK, 2012 0.275; rising due to offshore IWTs
Bruce Post
3 years 4 months ago
Having once been on a national policy panel on U.S.-China relations (admittedly, a long time ago), I believe it is easy, and usually wrong, to generalize about China. So, I see little relevance of China to the industrial wind debate here in Vermont, pro or con. Here is something I find more relevant to the U.S. and also to Vermont: “Daily Inforgraphic: If everyone live like an American, how many earths would we need.” http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2012-10/daily-infographic-if-everyone-lived-american-how-many-earths-would-we-need So, if Vermont truly wants to “show the nation”, maybe the whole state can stop living like Americans. Yet, aside from George Plumb and a… Read more »
3 years 4 months ago

Bruce,
I have been mentioning EE

3 years 4 months ago
Peter, China and India will do what is in their interests. As Vermont’s CO2 from energy generation is only 4% of all Vermont’s emissions, and vehicles and buildings emit 75%, one would think the wise ones at the PSB ,and DPS, and legislature energy committees would place the emphasis on high-mileage vehicles and zero energy buildings. NO, say the RE promoters, instead, to build our RE businesses, waste scarce money on expensive, inefficient RE SPEED projects that produce intermittent, variable energy, i.e., junk energy at 3 times grid prices. NET job creation from RE is negative. Jobs ARE created in… Read more »
3 years 4 months ago
Avram, if China didn’t have a single coal fired power plant it wouldn’t change the fact that wind turbines in Vermont have little to no effect on improving the state’s air quality. The fact that China is increasing the usage of wind power doesn’t change the utility of wind turbines in Vermont to improve air quality. So lets get back to Vermont and evaluate the erection of wind turbines in Vermont as a societal return on investment. It sounds to me like you’re espousing the erection of wind turbines in Vermont solely so we can say that we’re doing something… Read more »
3 years 4 months ago

Peter,
Follow the money.

It IS about the subsidies, not CO2 emissions reduction, otherwise Vermont would be doing something about the REAL CO2 emitters, i.e., vehicles and buildings.

3 years 4 months ago

There are currently around a quarter of a million wind turbines in the world. The only positive benefit from Vermont’s relatively tiny number will be a miniscule contribution to ultimately debunking Al Gore’s ridiculous claim that the Earth’s forests have somehow suddenly become incapable of breathing in (sequestering) sufficient Carbon Dioxide to prevent that imaginary significant temperature rise which he christened “Global Warming”.

Meanwhile, this negligible benefit is not worth the horrific detrimental impacts of wind farms on human health and animal populations, as well as their hideous contribution to the destruction of Vermont’s formerly beautiful ridgelines.

Krister Adams
3 years 4 months ago

Mr. Brodie: Are you actually suggesting there is not a global warming/climate change, etc. happening? Where have you been?

3 years 4 months ago
To start with your last question, I have been living in California for most of my life, where I worked at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory on space exploration missions. While there I learned a few things about astronomy and gained an appreciation for how the Sun regulates the Earth’s temperature. I suggest that you spend some time looking into something called the Milankovich Cycles. You will gain an appreciation for how incredibly powerful is the influence on Earth’s climate of that star called the Sun which we are so very close to. There certainly is such a thing as climate… Read more »
Krister Adams
3 years 4 months ago

Mr. Brodie: I have visited your blog. Obviously, from the blog’s content and your response above, it’s clear you fancy yourself a.man of intellectual superiority over many of us. Understand though, that man has changed, and is rapidly changing, the world’s climate. This is indisputable. The real scientific facts abound. As a father and uncle, I want to leave a healthy earth for the next generation. We must all do what we can, be it little or big. Sir, your notion of “lining pockets” seems somewhat paranoid and will not help make our planet healthy both physically and economically.

3 years 4 months ago
Mr. Brodie is a mathematical genius; he was developing early computer programs for the B-52 Bomber at age 15. I’m not sure how it would work out mathematically, but it’s possible that his Commie-kill tally beats that of many a Green Beret in Vietnam. May I assume that you do NOT consider yourself “a man of intellectual superiority”? If that is true, you have put yourself in a position of having to follow the expert advice of others: in other words, you are a sheep to be led. It’s your choice whose advice to take: that of “respected, established scientists”… Read more »
krister adams
3 years 4 months ago
Ms. Anderson: Because I must work to support my family and pay for the gas taxes, fuel-oil taxes and general extra energy costs due to global warming, I don’t have time as you apparently do, to yammer on about Al Gore, the sun, etc. BUT, I cannot let you, a blowhard of the first order, insult me. I do not consider myself a person of SUPERIOR intelligence as you obviously do.I am however a well-read, well-rounded, intelligent man. I’m sure you’ll dispute this but I really don’t care as there often is no convincing the far-right, zealous, narrow-minded among us.… Read more »
Carl Werth
3 years 4 months ago

Krister – I’m equally convinced that there is no convincing the far-left, zealous narrow-minded among us either.

3 years 4 months ago
Indeed Willem, I couldn’t agree with you more, just follow the money. It is absolutely amazing the strangle hold the renewable energy industry has managed to achieve over the thinking of so many in the state. Those in the renewable industry are wholly motivated by their own financial self interest, which is fine in a free market economy. However, we cannot lose sight of the reality that their business goals are void of anything meaningful for the public good for Vermont. The only thing a Spanish company setting up business in Vermont is interested in, is returning dollars to Spain.… Read more »
3 years 4 months ago
Avram Projected World CO2 Emissions (million metric tonnes) by 2035  22,700 in 1990 29,890 in 2008 31,630 in 2009 33,160 in 2010 33,990 in 2011 43,200 in 2035, projected based on IEA assumptions. In 2011, some major CO2 emitters (million metric ton) were:                                                      2011        2010           China                                         … Read more »
3 years 4 months ago
So over the 3 year period from 2008 to 2011 there was an average yearly CO2 emissions increase of 1.367 Billion tons. But over the 24 years following 2011 there is projected to be an average yearly increase of only 384 Million tons – a 356 percent decrease! (this is under the assumption that you meant to say “through 2035” instead of “by 2035”). It makes you wonder how it can be predicted with such precision, over such a long period of time, exactly what will be the combined effect of changes in increased emissions from some sources versus decreased… Read more »
3 years 4 months ago
Richard, A greater increase of annual CO2 emissions has occurred during the past few years, primarily due to China’s coal combustion, but the EIA projection, made about 1.5 years ago, did not get adjusted. It is likely the EIA 2035 value will be exceeded. I was hoping Avram would comment on the world CO2 emissions of 33,990 in 2011 and Vermont’s 8.1 (million metric ton), but, so far, not a peep. For tiny Vermont to “be a leader, show the world, fight GW and CC, etc.”, and concentrate on energy generation on ridge lines using the ill-conceived, ballooning, SPEED program,… Read more »
Avram Patt
3 years 4 months ago

I fully agree that the State of Vermont is tiny, geographically and in population, compared to the enormous nation of China. I also agree that we emit less carbon and other emissions in total than China emits in total.

3 years 4 months ago
Avram, Agreeing with published numbers is fine, but what should be done in the face of such a reality check; China ADDS each year about 70 times all of Vermont’s annual CO2 emissions. Vermont would be seen as smarter/wiser by concentrating its very scarce resources and subsidies on buildings and vehicles, which in Vermont are the BIG CO2 emitters, (75% of CO2 emissions), whereas energy generation is a SMALL CO2 emitter (4% of CO2 emissions). As you know. energy efficiency is invisible, does not make noise, does not create social discord, AND, as you know, is soooo much less costly… Read more »
3 years 4 months ago

Richard,
The increase was 11,290 for the 1990-2011 period
The projected increase is 9,210 for 2012-2035 period

3 years 4 months ago
Willem, Thanks for the clarification. Using these figures, covering a longer period, yields yearly averages of 537 before 2011, compared with 400 after 2011 – a mere 26 percent decrease. This does not speak very favorably about the effectiveness of “renewable” energy schemes, or at least the environmentally destructive ones like wind farms. Instead of all these ugly turbines, that require the removal of large swaths of trees and thereby diminish the CO2 sequestering power of our forests, perhaps we should instead plant MORE trees which would not only PROVABLY remove more CO2, but would do so with the beneficial… Read more »
3 years 4 months ago

Yes, Richard, and that is a major reason for passing S-10, so people can give all these programs a thorough trimming and review, before the costs balloon out of control, as the SPEED program is about to do.

See my above comment for the SPEED ballooning details.

3 years 4 months ago
So over the 3 year period from 2008 to 2011 there was an average yearly CO2 emissions increase of 1.367 Billion tons. But over the 24 years following 2011 there is projected to be an average yearly increase of only 384 Million tons – a 356 percent decrease! (this is under the assumption that you meant to say “through 2035” instead of “by 2035”.) It makes you wonder how it can be predicted with such precision, over such a long period of time, exactly what will be the combined effect of changes in increased emissions from some sources versus decreased… Read more »
John Greenberg
3 years 4 months ago
Richard Brodie writes: “this is under the assumption that you meant to say “through 2035″ instead of “by 2035″” Your assumption is wrong. If you look at the 3rd link in the list Willem Post provides above (eia.gov … etc.), it shows the entire spreadsheet from which the number is pulled. Both Willem and the EIA clearly state that the number is for the year 2035, NOT for the years “through” 2035. Perhaps your inability to read or check sources rather than your “mathematical genius” (see Ellin Anderson’s comment above) accounts for your differences with the vast majority of scientists… Read more »
3 years 4 months ago

Wow, just wow.

What a nasty, frantic, unnecessarily personal post. John, I thought you owned a bookstore. No one is calling you a peasant, except you.

As to Mr. Brodie: Gorgeous blond California guys don’t need to be perfect at math forever and ever. They just get to “be.”

In case you had ever wondered.

This will be my last post to this thread. See you all after the Senatorial event, tomorrow.

Ellin Anderson
Brownington, VT

3 years 4 months ago
John, if you will correct the misinformation you just delivered then I will gladly respond. All three of Willem’s links were to the same site viz. theenergycollective.com. None were to eia.gov, but upon checking out his third link there was no “entire spreadsheet” which you led us to believe we would see there. But what I did see was around FORTY additional links! I trust you will not fault me for an “inability to read or check sources” when I tell you that, operating as I do in a dial-up environment, I have no intention of spending the hours of… Read more »
3 years 4 months ago

I must apologize. The first of my two duplicate responses, made at 12.51 PM, did not go into an “awaitng moderation” state right away, as it usually does. I had to make a trip into town and did not return until mid-afternoon. By then Willem had made another post (which was the only one I noticed) and not seeing my response, I concluded that it had not been successfully posted. Having saved it in Word (for spell-checking) I copied and pasted it at 3:10 PM as a second attempt at responding. Hence my confusion about the links.

John Greenberg
3 years 4 months ago

Richard:

I’m not quite sure whether your 9:17 post is intended to retract your 8:58 post or not.

To be clear on my end, in any case, there is no “misinformation” in my previous post to correct. I referred to Willem’s 12:36 post, to which your 2:51 post is clearly a response. In Willem’s post, if you count down to the 3rd link, you will find: http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/tablebrowser/#release=IEO2011&subject=0-IEO2011&table=10-IEO2011&region=0-0&cases=Reference-0504a_1630, which you can then download as a spreadsheet.

3 years 4 months ago

John,

Yes, my apology was intended as a retraction of my mistaken accusation of misinformation. I am very sorry, and hope you understand that it was based on an unfortunate mix-up. You may want to check out my response today (1:17 and possibly still awaiting moderation) to Willem’s post of 5:22 PM yesterday, where he provides more data which I presume comes from the eia.gov site.

John Greenberg
3 years 4 months ago

Thanks for the retraction.

I did see your response to Willem. You’re both misusing the figures. This is labeled as the reference case, and therefore not intended to, in your words, “speak very favorably about the effectiveness of “renewable” energy schemes.”

Without closely examining it, I am assuming that this is the case to which, for example, more aggressive renewable energy schemes would be compared. Put differently, this is the “business as usual” case.

3 years 4 months ago

I’m glad we could clear the air and be able to get on with more productive discourse. I take full responsibility for the distracting detour.

I don’t think that what is going on right now with inefficient wind power can be characterized as “more aggressive” RE. So if getting more aggressive means putting up a hundred thousand turbines all over what will have to be renamed the “Silver Mountain State”, then perhaps it is time to move in more promising directions, such as solar and/or nuclear, and away from the failed alternative.

3 years 4 months ago

Ellen Anderson,
A masterful comment to Mr. Brodie’s comment. I wish I could write as well as you.

3 years 4 months ago

Sorry, I meant Krister Adams, instead of Brodie

3 years 4 months ago
Yes, Willem, I see what you meant. (THIS will be my final post to the thread.) I am now an impoverished poet, but in the past, I have been a professional advertising and marketing copywriter. Much of what I write here is just muscle-flexing, and not to be taken too seriously (to those who feel that they have been used as my personal Nautilus machine.) So, it’s never meant to be personal. HOWEVER, when I see poor, trusting rural people being abused by fat cats with no conscience whatsoever — deprived of their very health and homes, so that some… Read more »
3 years 4 months ago

Did anyone see the report on wind turbines on Channel 3 at 6 PM today?

The report cited an incredible myriad of wind turbine problems ranging from low operational efficiency, over capacity, problems transporting the power, environmental and there may have been others I missed. The report didn’t get into issues relating to air quality improvement, which would have been another negative.

There can be debate on what was reported, however, there definitely are enough problems here to slow down rabid rush to construction we’re getting from the renewable industry.

wpDiscuz
Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "Campbell delays S.30 vote until Tuesday, citing Wolfe’s threat,..."