Law students call for changes to renewable energy market - VTDigger
 

Law students call for changes to renewable energy market

Twenty-one 450-foot-tall wind turbines run along the Lowell Mountains ridgeline for 4 miles. Photo by Andrew Stein/VTDigger

Twenty-one 450-foot-tall wind turbines run along the Lowell Mountains ridgeline for 4 miles. File photo by Andrew Stein/VTDigger

Vermont gets virtually none of its grid power from wind or solar sources, according to a report Vermont Law School students presented recently to the Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee.

Developers and utilities sell Vermont’s wind and solar power to other New England states, using what are known as renewable energy credits, or RECs. As a result, although Vermonters subsidize these forms of energy, utilities in other states actually benefit from them, the report found.

The students want to change that. They are calling for new restrictions that would keep Vermont renewable energy in state, although they acknowledge that would raise the cost of electricity because utilities would lose the income from selling the credits.

The committee’s chairman said he’s holding off on any legislative remedy to the issues raised in the report until the Public Service Board finalizes new rules on solar development, which he said might address many of those concerns.

Chris Bray

Sen. Chris Bray, D-Addison. File photo

The report “highlights a real need for people buying solar power and selling solar power to be very clear about how they’re handling the RECs,” said committee Chairman Chris Bray, D-Addison.

Developers and utilities continue selling wind and solar energy credits out of state because Vermonters don’t understand the process by which they do so, said Kevin Jones, a professor who supervises the Vermont Law School Energy Clinic. Three law students in that clinic — Gregg Freeman, Heather Huebner and Aaron Kelly — wrote the report under Jones’ guidance.

“This is well understood by people close to policy — they just portray it being radically different than it is,” Jones said.

Other states’ utilities buy Vermont renewable energy credits because those states require the utilities to get a portion of their power from wind or solar sources. Utilities purchase the credits — legal title to the renewable attributes of wind and solar energy — as a way to meet those requirements, instead of building wind and solar facilities.

Some of the credits come from producers in Vermont’s net metering program, which allows electric consumers who generate their own power to sell it back to the grid at a substantially higher rate than utilities pay for wholesale power.

“We’re putting a lot of money and resources into subsidizing renewable energy for Massachusetts and Connecticut, and it makes no sense from a public policy standpoint,” Jones said.

The report’s figures on Vermont’s consumption of wind and solar energy come from the state’s comprehensive energy plan, which determined that the amount of each that isn’t sold out of state is statistically nil. Although some solar purveyors in the state don’t sell their renewable credits elsewhere, they produce a negligible portion of the state’s total energy.

The electricity that replaces Vermont’s exported wind and solar power consists mainly of fossil fuel-generated and nuclear power, the report states.

The report also found that Vermont has doubled its greenhouse gas emissions from electricity production over the last 10 years. About a quarter of that can be attributed to the sale of renewable credits out of state, the report estimated.

The Public Service Board is currently revising rules for the net metering program.

The rewrite of these rules was statutorily scheduled for Jan. 1, to give legislators time to review them and pass legislation addressing any potential deficiencies, Bray said. His committee won’t take action on the report’s recommendations before those rules are finalized, he said, in case the rules largely put those suggestions in place.

But Jones said they won’t.

The draft rules would require that the credits for new net-metered solar power stay in state and go to the utility that purchases the power. But the rules do not speak to solar and wind projects that are already built, Jones said.

“It’s a failure in renewable energy policy by design,” he said. “It’s exactly as they designed it: to perpetuate the long-term out-of-state sale of wind and solar RECs.”

Bray didn’t indicate he would take up the issue of existing projects in his committee.

The law school report recommends the Legislature consider banning the out-of-state sale of RECs from net-metered projects, since Vermonters pay a premium for that energy. The report also recommends phasing out the sale of RECs from most existing wind and solar facilities.

If Vermont kept its wind and solar power in state, energy prices would rise, Bray said. The report confirms this, but urges it nevertheless.

“If Vermont wants to consume the cheapest power on the grid, it will consume dirty power and will increase its greenhouse gas emissions,” the report states.

Mike Polhamus

Leave a Reply

47 Comments on "Law students call for changes to renewable energy market"

1000

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
Annette Smith
9 months 1 day ago
I’m sorry but I don’t understand why Sen. Bray thinks the PSB’s net metering rules are going to address the problem. Today I posted photos of Allco Renewable Energy’s (Wall St. NYC lawyer/developer father/son team) 2 MW Sudbury Solar project, which is a Standard Offer project not touched by net metering rules. See the photos here https://vermontersforacleanenvironment.wordpress.com/2016/03/04/allco-renewable-energys-sudbury-solar-project/. This company, which is a founder of SunEdison and part-owner of groSolar, has received numerous Standard Offer contracts, including for Sudbury Solar, two 2 MW Bennington Solar projects (one recently denied by the PSB, but the lawyer/developers already got approval from the PSB… Read more »
Willem Post
9 months 1 day ago
Chris Bray, “The report “highlights a real need for people buying solar power and selling solar power to be very clear about how they’re handling the RECs,” said committee Chairman Chris Bray, D-Addison.” But this has been going on for FIVE YEARS. Rules and regulations regarding RECs that are clear to the public should have existed FROM DAY ONE. Had that been done, none this brouhaha would exist. There has been entirely too much secrecy by the top politicos regarding many aspects of the state government taking over/centralizing the energy sector in Vermont. The same is happening regarding GMP quietly… Read more »
Randy Jorgensen
9 months 1 day ago

“If Vermont kept its wind and solar power in state, energy prices would rise, Bray said. The report confirms this, but urges it nevertheless.”

Much like putting a price on Carbon. By keeping the RECS instate we are NOT allowing another out of state entity to burn fossil fuels.

John Freitag
9 months 23 hours ago

It seems that if we want to do the right thing regarding climate change, we should, as a first step, be purchasing the renewable power produced in our own State before buying our energy from fossil fuel plants. This should be a far higher priority that would have real results than all the current talk about divestment of state employees pensions funds . Of course this means actual sacrifice for all which might not be politically as popular.

9 months 17 hours ago

Except for pricing of “renewable” power is too high, the risks too great to environmental, human, aesthetic and property rights

Larry Gleb
9 months 13 hours ago
@ John Freitag: “Of course this means actual sacrifice for all which might not be politically as popular.” I can’t believe you are recommending further sacrifice by Vermonters, that would only result in increased energy costs and other costs of living expenses. Something tells me you are speaking for the 1%..ie those who can afford lofty energy ideals that raise their living expenses. Mean while, I am scrimping to pay my fuel, food and rent. Honestly, the only energy policy I want is the one that will lower my costs today…not 10 years from now. Bottom line- I can barely… Read more »
John Freitag
8 months 29 days ago
Larry makes a good point. While solar can be a beneficial part of an overall energy portfolio, peak production comes in the summer when there is often peak demand on the hottest of days, it has to be sized and sited appropriately. We are currently hiding the true costs of solar by selling the REC’s and using far cheaper hydro power from Canada to meet our current renewable energy requirements and then using far cheaper fossil fuel and nuclear power from Seabrook for the rest of our energy needs. When hydro power from Canada becomes available to the MA and… Read more »
R.J. Adler
9 months 21 hours ago
I find it interesting that Jones forgets to mention in this article, or really any others that he’s written, that a Renewable Portfolio Standard was recently passed so RECs can be sold in Vermont in 2017, thus mitigating the out of state sale problem. Also, let’s take a step back and remember: More renewable energy is good for the planet as a whole. Global warming doesn’t care about state lines. Selling RECs doesn’t allow polluters to keep polluting- it forces them to take their profits, that which they covet most, and give it directly to their competitors. Selling RECs makes… Read more »
Willem Post
9 months 20 hours ago
RJ, At present, Vermont PV solar is a free-for-all for out-of-state and instate multi-millionaires, because they want to get to excessive subsidies, as quickly as possible, and as much as possible. Tens of millions of dollars are shipped out-of-state EACH YEAR to these multi-millionaires to fatten their no-risk tax shelters, because the PSB is STILL awarding them excessive feed in tariffs, even though the capital costs of large PV solar systems have declined. The feed-in tariffs are much higher in Vermont than in Germany, even though Vermont has better solar conditions than Germany. The PSB is over-coddling multi-millionaires, at the… Read more »
Mark Keefe
9 months 18 hours ago
RJ you’re not alone. I’m one of those pesky old Vermonters with my own ideas about progress. I believe in efficiency, clean energy and being a good steward of the land. Which is why I believe Act 250 should apply to all industrial development – wind and solar included to ensure we are not doing more harm than good with our projects. I support more power (not less) from Hydro Quebec because I can afford it and it is, by far, the cleanest, most dependable, steady source of power available. Adhering to our own environmental laws and capitalizing on the… Read more »
Ethan Rogati
9 months 17 hours ago

The issue of flooding the lands of indigenous people in the area that the dams have been constructed is not harmless. It’s Canada and Quebec, not our back yard. We’re encouraging other people in other countries to damage their land and hard their people. It’s not prudent.

Randy Jorgensen
9 months 15 hours ago
So then you would agree, that buying hybrid cars, and other items that use rare earth isn’t ‘Prudent’ as well. Most low-medium wind industrial wind turbines use large quantities of rate earth material. (The ones on Georgia mountain happen to be such) That rare earth happens to come almost exclusively from China. For your reading: http://www.news.com.au/travel/world-travel/asia/baotou-is-the-worlds-biggest-supplier-of-rare-earth-minerals-and-its-hell-on-earth/news-story/371376b9893492cfc77d23744ca12bc5 “Baotou is the world’s biggest supplier of rare earth minerals — the fundamental ingredients used to make today’s technologies — and it’s hell on Earth. This pastureland turned wasteland on the edge of the Gobi desert is a toxic nightmare, evidence of the horrific… Read more »
Annette Smith
9 months 18 hours ago
Act 56 requires that 10% of Vermont’s renewable power retire the RECs. All the rest allows the RECs to be sold indefinitely with no phase-out. CLF and REV testified in favor of phasing out REC sales. The prior RPS legislation that failed required a phase-out of REC sales leading to retirement. Instead of requiring any built or future projects to sell the RECs, what the RPS law you are proudly proclaiming is good for Vermont allows is the continuing sale of RECs from wind and solar out of state, and then the utilities can meet the state’s goals by purchasing… Read more »
Kevin Jones
9 months 15 hours ago
R.J. selling RECs does not make renewable energy less expensive it transforms this energy into expensive nonrenewable energy that has Vermonters paying a premium to increase the state’s GHG emissions. Lets look at what happens when your company develops the so-called community solar arrays in Vermont. A Vermont customer signs up thinking they are going solar and there is a 19 cent per kWh net metering payment to the customer of which they turn 92.5% over to the developer. The developer then sells the RECs out of state for another 5 cents per kWh and that state counts the renewables… Read more »
Willem Post
8 months 29 days ago
Kevin, “The unfortunately labeled community solar array net metered customer gets a little bit of savings for buying non-renewable energy, Vermont’s percentage of renewable energy does not increase but our greenhouse gasses do and for increasing the state’s carbon footprint and likely misleading a well-meaning Vermonter into thinking they have gone solar but did not the developer gets 23 cents per kWh when the utility could have bought natural gas on the margin for perhaps 4.5 cents per kWh. One heck of a public policy for Vermont and meaningful climate accomplishment and community service from the B corp.” You keep… Read more »
Kevin Jones
8 months 28 days ago
Willem you forget that we have energy laws and policies not just physics with the electric grid. You seem to have little respect for anything beyond your field of engineering. Taken literally your statement that everyone in New England uses the same mix of energy does not respect the laws set up to ensure accurate disclosure of electrical use and carbon accounting. Your statement also does not respect the physics of the system. Under your rules we would have to acknowledge that we don’t know what anyone consumes because your assumption of some generic mix is a physical fiction itself… Read more »
Willem Post
8 months 24 days ago
Kevin, “Under your rules we would have to acknowledge that we don’t know what anyone consumes because your assumption of some generic mix is a physical fiction itself and not reflected in current policy either.” This sentence is pure nonsense. Please do not denigrate me for being an engineer, as I studied a fair number of law sources. I can see a flaw in an argument, legal or science, before most people. 1) The energy mix IS generic, per Physics 101. In NE, we ALL consume the same energy mix. 2) Regarding what we CALL that mix, per various rules… Read more »
9 months 20 hours ago

Vermont’s policy of condoning REC sales out of states makes a mockery of renewables energy policies. But I disagree with Mr. Jones’ characterization that Vermont is “subsidizing renewable energy for Massachusetts and Connecticut.” It’s the other way around. MA and CT ratepayers are heavily subsidizing the cost of renewables built in VT. Meanwhile, Mary Powell and Shumlin perpetuate the lie that Vermonters can build wind cheaper than everyone else.

Michael Bobee
9 months 18 hours ago

I’m in complete agreement. The reality is that no one state can support/sustain all the resources it needs.(energy, transportation, etc.) It seems like we’ve had our head in the sand and now we can be selective and innovative? Don’t forget where Vermont gets it’s revenues. It’s not from high-tech research. Know your strengths and accept how others can make your community better based on their strengths.

Kevin Jones
9 months 15 hours ago
Lisa it depends on your perspective. The leaders of CT and MA should be commended for having an honest and leading renewable energy policy. They realize you have to pay a premium today to truly purchase renewable energy. When they purchase our solar RECs though their utilities can buy market power on the margin for 4.5 cents and pay 5 cents for our RECs and legally claim to go solar at the cost of around 9.5 cents. For a 500 kW solar array Vermont ratepayers have paid 19 cents a kWh only to have the developer then sell that solar… Read more »
Steve McKenzie
9 months 20 hours ago
So if I have this right: Under the umbrella of the “90% renewable energy by 2050” goal, industrial wind and solar projects essentially get immediate green lights regardless of local opposition. Any RE generated is sold out of state, resulting in Vermont increasing fossil-fuel use, directly counter to the purported goal. The wind/solar developers get the financial reward, other states get the REC’s and Vermont gets an increasingly industrialized & tarnished landscape. Watchdog.org, 07/28/15: “Can Vermont really hit a 90% renewable energy goal?” “Vermont is leading America in getting energy policy right,” Shumlin said last month..” No, it’s apparently not.… Read more »
samuel shultis
9 months 18 hours ago

The case for being skeptical of climate change – and many other popular scientific assertions – is based on knowledge of the ‘machine’ by which new ‘scientific’ ideas are evaluated and spread by non-experts, who are prone to choose winners and losers on the basis of warm & fuzzy/touchy-feely political ideology rather than scientific merit. Ergo we pave Vermont with solar panels in the name of the Church of Environmentalism …. Welcome to the world of indulgencies to get out of our imaginary carbon purgatory.

John McClaughry
9 months 20 hours ago
lLet’s get real here. If Vermont wants to subsidize wind and solar to defeat “climate change”, the planet is getting all the wind and solar electricity that the PSB will allow, and the planet is (according to the likes of VPIRG) benefiting (infinitesimally) from it. So to lessen the rate shock caused by those mandated high priced renewables, we let the Vermont utilities peddle these funny-money REC coupons to anybody who needs to buy them – mainly utilities in other states subjected to Renewable Portfolio Standard laws, who find buying Vermont RECs less damaging to their own ratepayers than building… Read more »
Ron Bouchard
9 months 19 hours ago
Thank you for this report, VLS. The influence of big money renewable and the ongoing, corrupting effect it has had on the current administration is evident in this report. Rep. Bray’s unwillingness to meaningfully address this issue, for the benefit of all Vermonters, is emblematic of the state house “lock-step” mentality to do the governor’s bidding that has devastated so many aspects of our once fine state. With complicity from the DPS and the PSB, big renewable is striving forward unfettered, decimating our landscape and selling RECs out of state with a nod and a wink from the administration. The… Read more »
Scott Woodward
9 months 19 hours ago
Vermont has turned itself into a REC exporter, plain and simple. No doubt that it’s important to build out renewable energy, but the way we’re going about it is truly unfortunate. Our poorly structured policies overshadow the good that comes from renewable energy projects and the means do not justify the ends. Renewable energy is a good thing, but how we get there is just as important. I don’t know if it will happen this session, but we really need to put it all out on the table and get it straight. It is not new news that the sale… Read more »
Kim Fried
9 months 19 hours ago

Don’t worry the Legislature and Shumlin are doing their best to divest the State and Teacher’s retirement plan of investments in coal and Exxon. But selling RECs out of state and turning Vermont into an industrial park for Mass., Conn. and RI is perfectly okay. How these people perpetuate this lie and absurdity is beyond imaginations. It is criminal, and these are our “Leaders”????????.
Thank you Vermont Law, Mr. Jones and students for bringing the truth forward. Now if we can get the Burn’s student fraternity to do their home work it will be a huge step forward.

samuel shultis
9 months 19 hours ago

“It’s a failure in renewable energy policy by design,” he said. “It’s exactly as they designed it: to perpetuate the long-term out-of-state sale of wind and solar RECs.”

Why am I not surprised? The state of Vermont is stupid enough to vote into office a legislative body the majority of which ARE out-of-state students ….

Allen Preston
9 months 18 hours ago

Curious as to why we’re having a conversation about RECs without bringing up Act 56. Because of it we have a strong renewable portfolio standard that will ultimately retire RECs in state.

Scott Woodward
9 months 18 hours ago

A conversation about Act 56 and the RPS should also include discussion of the Tier II requirements and whether in the next years to come the RPS allows for the creation of surplus RECs which will still be sold out of state. As I see it, the RPS does not fundamentally alter the situation, but certainly open to a different interpretation of the Tier II requirements.

Allen Preston
9 months 18 hours ago

Not saying the tier II requirements are perfect, they could certainly be stronger, but it at least act 56 addresses the issue in a meaningful way. Yet you rarely hear it mentioned when the REC issue comes up

Annette Smith
9 months 18 hours ago

As I posted above, Act 56 requires only 10% of Vermont’s renewable power to be retired. All built projects like Lowell, Sheffield and Georgia Mountain wind, all big solar arrays will continue to sell the RECs out of state in perpetuity under Act 56. Utilities will meet the state’s renewable energy goals for the other 90% with Hydro-Quebec non-RECs, called compliance payments, which cost about a penny compared to 5 or 6 cents for wind and solar. Is this called a shell game or a sham? We can fix this now.

Willem Post
9 months 6 hours ago
Annette, And this sham was pulled off behind closed doors by Campbell, Smith, Klein, Bray, Utilities, and wind and solar multi-millionaires, with Shumlin as the maestro leading the orchestra. All is done under a false flag to deceive the people, i.e., saving the world, being a leader, fulfilling the 90% RE PLAN, and more such irrational nonsense malarkey. Next will be the carbon tax imposed on hard-working families and businesses, so Montpelier – Can centralize the energy sector in the same inefficient, ponderous way as the health and education sectors. – Can have about $500 million MORE to play RE… Read more »
9 months 17 hours ago
I get stuck on the word renewable. Big power companies allowed tomonopolize themselves, slyly retaining Vermont or Green Mountain in the title. They blew up mountain tops, own the hydro rights to Vermont waterways. Instead, drive out nuclear, then PSB and politicians invited Gaz Metro to put a pipeline through Monkton, Vermont. Fossil Fracking fuels. The so called solar farms are an eyesore, pitting townspeople against government, lawyers everywhere, and nowhere. The PSB, like the all powerful Oz, decides, they have spoken. Each project, each line extension, is intended to be a cash cow for power companies, and more. Each… Read more »
Asa Wagner
9 months 16 hours ago

Credits are good for Vermont renewable energy because they help pay for the often expensive development. Yes, a company in Boston might technically be getting credit for using renewable energy, but it’s helping us create more solar panels and wind mills in New England. Besides, Act 56 has a measure that essentially will get rid of this practice by 2032, and by that time we’ll be much further along with renewable energy structures and technology.

Kevin Jones
9 months 15 hours ago

If your employer happened to deposit your paycheck in a MA customers bank account would you say that is just a technicality or a serious error. We are legally selling this solar and wind energy to MA customers who pay a premium for it and count the GHG reductions. It is not just a technicality. The facts from the state’s own data speaks for itself 0% solar 0% wind and a doubling of Vermont’s GHG emissions.

Scott Woodward
9 months 14 hours ago
That’s most like a false equivalence, but seeing how developers are generally disinclined to reveal the financials, we’ll never know really know whether selling RECs is actually required for the development to occur. There are examples of where community projects have been developed without the RECs being sold, so that cuts against your argument Asa. There would seem to be no reason why development can’t occur at a reasonable pace without selling RECs. The pace is most likely designed to serve the interests of developers and not Vermont in general. “Vermont Grown, Vermont Green”: http://mountaintimes.info/boardman-hill-solar-farm-is-vermont-grown-vermont-green/ Arguing that the practice will… Read more »
Willem Post
9 months 6 hours ago
Asa, GMP gives a wind energy REC to an out of state entity, and that entity gives GMP 5 c/kWh. The out of state entity does not have to build RE systems, because it bought an REC. GMP, with a straight face, crows about how low the cost of wind energy is. However, its cost would be about 15 c/kWh, without REC revenues, fast depreciation write offs, over-generous subsidies, and cash grants. And that is how wind energy became so “competitive” with other energy sources. But that is not all. Wind energy cannot stand on its own, i.e., no wind,… Read more »
Ed Grimley
9 months 15 hours ago

Once again, in the infinite wisdom of the well meaning we the tax payer bears the burden for their stupidity.

Amanda Arena
9 months 14 hours ago

Glad the legislature passed Act 56 to address the REC issue. Weird that’s not talked about. They will eventually be retired in the state, and by next year utilities will be required to have a certain amount of renewables which will keep more RECs in the state.

Randy Jorgensen
8 months 29 days ago
It was talked about above by Annette in a few places, I’ll quote it for you reference: “Act 56 requires only 10% of Vermont’s renewable power to be retired. All built projects like Lowell, Sheffield and Georgia Mountain wind, all big solar arrays will continue to sell the RECs out of state in perpetuity under Act 56. Utilities will meet the state’s renewable energy goals for the other 90% with Hydro-Quebec non-RECs, called compliance payments, which cost about a penny compared to 5 or 6 cents for wind and solar. Is this called a shell game or a sham? We… Read more »
Norm Etkind
9 months 13 hours ago
Let’s consider how we got into this mess. Global warming is bad. Global warming is substantially caused by the generation of greenhouse gases, primarily CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels. Therefore we need to reduce the generation of CO2. We know in Vermont we are a tiny part of the problem but nonetheless we should do our part to address this problem. How? The key next question should have been, “How can we get the biggest CO2 generation reduction and the maximum benefit to Vermonters for the limited amount of money we can invest in this program?” This question… Read more »
Chris Kayes
9 months 6 hours ago
“Let’s consider how we got into this mess. Global warming is bad. Global warming is substantially caused by the generation of greenhouse gases, primarily CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels. Therefore we need to reduce the generation of CO2.” Sorry Norm, but your statement is based on the speculation that assumes a human increase in CO2 causes an increase in temperature as opposed to a natural variation in temperature which causes an increase in CO2, which has been more than adequately proven in the ice core records. Global warming, if it is actually happening, is not bad. Do you… Read more »
Norm Etkind
8 months 29 days ago

I’m not going to engage with those that deny that there’s global warming or climate change or whatever you want to call it. Why?

Because, regardless, it makes sense to make our buildings more efficient to save money and to use less resources.

Willem Post
9 months 6 hours ago
Norm, Vermont’s best approach would not be expensive RE, but energy efficiency. That will SAVE money for households and businesses, PLUS reduce CO2. Vermont should have enforced building codes requiring “zero-energy” and preferably “energy-surplus” construction for ALL NEW buildings to ensure building energy requirements are minimal. Such “energy-sipping” buildings would be energy efficient, Passivhaus-standard or better. Such buildings, with the addition of PV solar, and ground- or air source heating and cooling systems, could easily become “energy-surplus” buildings. New residential, industrial, commercial, institutional and governmental buildings would produce most of their own energy by having PV solar systems on their… Read more »
Chris Kayes
9 months 6 hours ago

Norm,

Also, we don’t call it global warming anymore, it’s called climate change as there hasn’t
been any global warming in the last 18+ years.

Must have missed the memo…

Jessie McIndoe
8 months 29 days ago

I offer some real information on “global warming” or “climate change”, or whatever the current fad moniker is:

The “long whimper” of failing climate alarmism
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/04/the-long-whimper-of-climate-alarmism/

Chris Kayes
8 months 27 days ago

Whoops, sorry, it’s not 18+ years, it’s more like 58 years.
See here: http://realclimatescience.com/2016/03/noaa-radiosonde-data-shows-no-warming-for-58-years/

wpDiscuz
Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "Law students call for changes to renewable energy market"