This commentary is by Greg Pierce of St. Albans, a retired professional civil engineer.
In the words of the immortal Yogi Berra: “It’s déjà vu all over again!”
The Vermont Climate Council’s Climate Action Plan — due in to the Vermont Legislature by Dec. 1 — is a disappointment. It’s nearly a retread of the 2022 Comprehensive Energy Plan, which appeared only days ago.
First, at 273 pages, it meanders unnecessarily. Young Swedish environmentalist Greta Thunberg calls it “blah, blah, blah,” which I’ll try to avoid by addressing — principally — transportation.
At page 73, the following information appears: “Pathways for Emissions Reductions — Transportation (39.7% of total emissions…) — Buildings… (33.9% of total emissions…)”
The math: 39.7+33.9=73.6 or approximately three quarters of overall emissions relates to two sectors only, transportation and building, both of which will benefit through rectification of shortcomings described in this commentary.
To be consistent with industry common practice, I will use EV to stand for “exclusively” electric vehicle and FCEV to stand for green hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicle.
- At page 77 of the Climate Action Plan — Transportation: “1. Replacing carbon-intensive fuels (gas and diesel) with zero emission or low carbon fuels such as electricity (noting that for medium to heavy duty vehicles in particular, there may be a limited but important role for biofuels or hydrogen, especially in the near term).”
Let’s be clear. “The near term” is now! Hydrogen could soon be available to Vermont if the climate action plan strongly urges Vermont legislators to contact their opposite numbers in the New York state legislature, asking if Vermont can “buy in” to the new green hydrogen production plant presently under construction in upstate New York. How complicated is that? And how powerful and economical it would be in advancing Vermont’s objectives as part of the multi-state vehicle standards improvement program, addressed later in this commentary.
- A disappointing shortcoming throughout the Climate Action Plan:
It makes no attempt to emphasize the safety of supply of stored hydrogen versus the vulnerability of the electric grid to brownouts, blackouts and storm damage that periodically puts Vermonters out of electric service for days at a time. This is an important factor. The climate plan should note FCEVs are better on safety of supply than EVs.
- At page 78 of the climate plan — Reductions in Existing Negative Health Issues: “Transitioning to a cleaner and more accessible transportation system can have real public health benefits…”
No mention anywhere in the plan that hydrogen has no negative health implications.
- At page 79 of the plan — Present Availability of Light Duty Non-emitting Vehicles: “The emissions benefits of switching from fossil-fueled to electric-powered vehicles are clear. Battery electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrid light duty electric vehicles are well beyond the research and development stage, they are being manufactured across the globe…” No mention, anywhere in the plan, of light-duty hydrogen vehicles — FCEVs. More than 12,000 FCEVs have already been sold and are operating in California.
- At pages 79 and 80 of the climate plan — Multi-State Vehicle Standards Improvement Program: “Strategy 1: Market-driving technology forcing regulatory programs Vermont first adopted California’s motor vehicles emission standards … in the early 2000s. … States are now amending and updating these regulations to require vehicle manufacturers to deliver even higher annual volumes of lower- and no-emitting vehicles. … Vermont should amend its own rules to ensure the most stringent standards, identical to California’s program, will apply to Vermont. … Adoption … in Vermont will … ensure a diversity of vehicle choices are available to Vermonters. … This multistate program will … help accelerate the maturation of the clean vehicle market.…”
Wow! Speak of talking out of both sides of your mouth! So the climate plan says follow California’s example on “no-emitting vehicles to meet pollution-reduction obligations.” This section totally disagrees with the rest of the climate plan on transportation. This is a laudable achievement I heartily endorse!
California, for more than a decade, has promoted hydrogen fueling stations and sale of FCEVs. In Vermont, nada. Why, everywhere else in its climate plan, isn’t the Vermont Climate Council promoting FCEVs for Vermont instead of its wholesale endorsement of EVs with their huge, dangerous batteries. A mystery, unsolved in this climate plan.
- At pages 84 and 85 of the climate plan — Fueling Station Availability. “Strategy 3: Public Investment in Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment. The Vermont Agency of Transportation has worked hard to… deploy… a Level 3 (DCFC) charger within 30 miles of every Vermont resident….”
“Efforts must include addressing these charging needs with the understanding that public/private partnerships and the role of the utilities in EVSE charging will complement and support greater deployment of and benefits from expanding EVSE charging infrastructure across the state.”
More climate plan inconsistencies. Electric charging stations but not hydrogen fueling stations? What of the Multi State Vehicle Standards Improvement Program? Isn’t it necessary to address the needs of FCEVs by including hydrogen fueling stations under the same terms as the electric charging stations, if you’re honestly endorsing the multistate program?
At this point something smells foul. Why does this climate plan sound so — dare I say it? — un-American?
Case in point: Our U.S. Supreme Court sets an example for America by incorporating into its processes the concept of the “dissenting opinion.” In all its machinations to promote electric vehicles to the exclusion of FCEVs, the Vermont Climate Council barely mentions the name of any alternative not-polluting light vehicles when a user base exceeding 12,000 vehicles already exists in the forward-looking state of California?
A melancholy tune slips into my head (two versions: The Everly brothers first, then Linda Ronstadt): “I’ve been cheated — been mistreated — when will I be loved?” Hum a few bars to get in the mood, then ask yourself if the Vermont Climate Council loves you or if it’s cheated you, mistreated you, by picking one horse to bet on, to the exclusion of all others? Worse, is it saying every member of the Vermont Climate Council, without exception, completely supports EV’s and Vermonters should forget FCEVs?
Recovering mental footing with a quick fact check. At the end of the climate plan, in the last line of the appendix is listed “Dissenting Opinions.” Where are they? They aren’t in the report. Who authored dissenting opinions, if in fact they actually exist? Are they council members who dared face down the majority? Or outsiders, like myself, who’ve struggled against the climate council’s “EVs only and no others” mentality”? Another climate plan mystery left unsolved.
I’ve seen enough of Climate Action Plan 2022 to feel safe in saying that, as presently written, it does a disservice to Vermonters. I urge legislators to reject this first draft and insist the Climate Action Plan be rewritten to include equal treatment of FCEVs alongside of EVs and include detailed dissenter opinions that give equivalent support to FCEVs.
When the Legislature has an unbiased presentation of all facts related to both FCEVs and EVs, it will be able to give intelligent guidance to state government organs on how best to proceed to a new energy regime that will ultimately replace the present polluting fossil-fuel regime.
It will also seriously upgrade the morale of existing fuel suppliers, as suppliers won’t be forced out of business, but rather encouraged and likely financially aided by state and federal governments to switch from supplying fossil fuels to supplying hydrogen.
