Editor’s note: This op-ed is by Tom Pelham, Finance commissioner in the Dean administration, Tax commissioner in the Douglas administration, state representative serving on the Appropriations Committee, now a founding member of Campaign for Vermont. This letter is to the three Washington District senators, Democrat Ann Cummings, Republican William Doyle and Progressive/Democrat Anthony Pollina.
Dear Sens. Cummings, Doyle and Pollina:
I hope you don’t feel chastened by the political “blowback” in Mr. Wolfe’s letter to Sen. Campbell. Mr. Wolfe’s extreme approach seems motivated by “the money.” He speaks of putting “his money where his mouth is” yet much of his money comes from us, taxpayers and ratepayers, through the generous and multiple layers of government subsidies upon which he relies. Possibly these subsidies have fueled an arrogance that often accompanies a sense of entitlement.
I have voted for each of you from time to time during my 24 years of residency in Washington County as well as having been elected to the Legislature myself. I understand elected officials, try as they might, can’t be all things to all people and therefore accept that we may agree to disagree more often than we would like, but there is no cause for the type of bullying exhibited by Mr. Wolfe.
I understand that S.30 is coming to the Senate floor shortly. Here are two reasons I urge you to vote in its favor.
Global Warming vs. Vermont’s High Electric Rates: S.30, through Vermont’s local town and city governments, will engage more Vermonters in the discussion of how best to lower Vermont’s carbon footprint. Currently this discussion occurs mostly in the often insular venues of the Statehouse (as we can see from Mr. Wolfe’s letter) and the lawyer-ladened Public Service Board and beyond the convenient reach of most Vermonters and their duly adopted local and regional plans.
I believe global warming is a huge problem that will require cheap, low carbon electricity to solve. For Vermont, our production of electricity is a relatively small contributor to our carbon footprint while transportation and heating activities are the major contributors. At this U.S. Energy Information Agency link, you can see that Vermont’s electric rates are already among the nation’s highest and continuing to rise.
Given Vermont’s energy plan of 90 percent renewable electricity versus the current 25 percent, it appears our future is on a course toward even higher and higher electric rates.
For December 2012, Vermont’s “all sectors” retail cost of electricity at $.1446 per kwh was 51 percent higher than the national average of $.0965 per kwh. Further, Vermont’s rate was the second highest in New England and grew by 5.1 percent over December 2011 while rates in most other New England states declined. Vermont’s December 2012 residential retail rate, at $.1782 per kwh, was 12 percent higher than the blended New England rate and grew by over 10 percent since December 2011.
Part of the reason Vermont’s rates are so high is that ratepayers have been forced by legislative and Public Service Board mandates to subsidize and buy expensive electricity from renewable producers like Mr. Wolfe. Given Vermont’s energy plan of 90 percent renewable electricity versus the current 25 percent, it appears our future is on a course toward even higher and higher electric rates.
Yet, these high rates are a sure barrier for most Vermonters to substitute and operate a carbon-free electric vehicle for a carbon-heavy fossil-fueled vehicle. To identify and implement the most effective and affordable methods to lower Vermont’s carbon footprint, it will be useful to welcome those at the local level who are knocking on the door to become more involved. Lowering Vermont’s electric rates would certainly be a subject for discussion.
Governmental Consistency and Fairness: Despite our small size, Vermont state government shares many vital responsibilities and powers with local and regional government. Educating our children comes readily to mind where school districts establish and manage school budget while the state raises necessary funds through statewide tax rates. Also, environmental regulation unfolds through the filter of state-funded Act 250 regional commissions which conduct their efforts in the context of locally and regionally crafted land-use plans.
Educating our children and protecting our environment are as vital, if not more vital, to Vermont’s future as energy policy. Yet, to date state leaders have chosen to substantially retain all the key powers critical to Vermont’s energy future at the state level, vesting it in the Legislature and at the Public Service Board. It seems oddly inconsistent that an Act 250 regional commission can regulate the siting of a Walmart in a Vermont community but has no purview over the siting of wind towers above 2,500 feet of elevation (an Act 250 threshold) or the complete coverage of an iconic Vermont field or meadow with acres of solar panels. As it is today, such decisions are retained by a three-person board appointed by the governor and who may or may not have any expertise in environmental regulation or local and regional planning.
While not a dramatic reform, S.30 is a positive step toward opening up and making more transparent the decision-making process for siting renewable energy facilities. It appears that some in the Newport area, with the governor’s backing, readily embrace the location of a Walmart. Yet, it is sure to face some tough scrutiny in the Act 250 review process. The same should be true for siting wind towers also supported by the governor. Yet, given current law, local folks have no equivalent local or regional regulatory process that forces the scrutiny of the benefits and costs or renewable facilities relative to local and regional plans.
I hope you will vote to support Sens. Benning and Hartwell and S.30 in this regard.
