Commentary: Telling the Truth About Vermont’s Energy Policy (November, 2015)

By Rob RoperRob Roper

How often have we heard advocates for extensive wind and solar development on Vermont ridge lines and pastures (heavily subsidized by tax and ratepayers) say that these efforts are necessary to curb global climate change, prevent future Tropical Storm Irenes, and save the maple sugar and ski industries? Pretty often.

However, under recent questioning, high-ranking members of the Department of Public Service and a leading Vermont climate scientist have admitted that not only will Vermont’s energy policy have no impact on climate change, affecting climate change isn’t even a goal.

Vermont law mandates that Vermont get 75% of current electricity demands from renewable sources by 2032, and sets a goal for 90% of all energy, including transportation and home heating, by 2050. This is a tremendous undertaking that will require extensive industrialization of now-pristine landscapes. All Earth Renewables founder, David Blittersdorf, has stated he expects one third of Vermont’s useable ridge-lines (200 miles) would be capped with wind towers in this effort. Still, this would only provide a fraction of the required power and an estimated additional 30,000 acres of solar panels would also be necessary.

This level of development will have negative impacts on bird and bat populations, and the habitats and migratory corridors of deer, bear and other wildlife. There are serious questions about the impact to water quality. It will change the character of Vermont from an aesthetic point of view, thus affecting the “Vermont Brand” we have all worked so hard to nurture.

It will affect the human population as well. Economically, the need to subsidize these projects through higher energy prices and, as some are now advocating, a Carbon Tax that would ultimately add 88¢ to the cost of a gallon of gasoline, will make Vermont an even more unaffordable place to live and work.

But the payback for all this hardship and sacrifice was supposed to be the knowledge that we were saving our grandchildren from an “unspeakably horrid” environmental future, to use the colorful phraseology of our governor.

This is not the case.

At a public forum to discuss the Comprehensive Energy Plan, Chris Recchia, Commissioner of the Public Service Department, said when asked about what kind of impact Vermont’s renewable energy policy would have on global temperatures,

I disagree with the characterization that the reason we’re doing this is to try and improve global warming.… [P]rimarily why we’re doing it is to have stable energy pricing and really secure energy resources that are renewable in our state.” (VT Watchdog, 10/23/15)

 Asa Hopkins, the Energy Policy Director for DPS, told a similar story.

Hopkins told Vermont Watchdog global warming targets aren’t in the plan because Vermont’s efforts won’t affect climate change. “Climate change is a classic tragedy-of-the-commons problem where no one person’s actions, no one state, or even one country’s actions is attributable to even more than maybe a few percent of the global challenge. (VT Watchdog, 10/9/15)

Of course Vermont can’t save the planet all by itself, so our policy is to be a leader and influence others to follow our example, and, therefore, have an indirect impact on climate change, right? Actually, not.

 Asked if the draft had targets for states or nations following Vermont’s lead, Hopkins replied, “No. We are focused on trying to take a path forward that works for Vermont. We’re not taking action … in hopes of inspiring action elsewhere.” (VT Watchdog, 10/9/15)

The science behind these policy statements is backed up by Vermont climate scientist Alan Betts, who said, “If the whole world went carbon neutral tomorrow, the earth has huge lags in it, and we’ll be faced with rising temperatures and greater extremes for the next 50 years. It’s totally unrealistic to pretend that Vermont will control a global problem….” (VT Watchdog, 9/24/15)

So, in summary, the vast building and subsidizing of renewable energy facilities throughout Vermont will not affect climate change, and, therefore, will not prevent tropical storms or other extreme weather events, nor will it save the maple sugar and ski industries decades down the road. Our policies are not even aimed at doing these things.

And, those telling us otherwise are not telling the truth.

By following these policies we will not pass on to the next generation a Vermont that is one iota cooler or more stable than it otherwise would be. It will be, however, uglier, less accessible, more expensive, and harder to find a job. Talk about a call to burn down the village in order to save it!

– Rob Roper is president of the Ethan Allen.

{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }

Paul Beane December 10, 2015 at 10:42 pm

It’s all about making somebody rich. Just my opinion but what else could, it be?


Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post:

About Us

The Ethan Allen Institute is Vermont’s free-market public policy research and education organization. Founded in 1993, we are one of fifty-plus similar but independent state-level, public policy organizations around the country which exchange ideas and information through the State Policy Network.

Latest News

Roll Call! House Overrides Gov Veto of Minimum Wage Increase (100-49), 2020

S.23– AN ACT RELATING TO INCREASING THE MINIMUM WAGE – VETO OVERRIDE . PASSED in the State House of Representatives on February 25, 2020, by a vote of 100-49 ....

Even Massachusetts Is Giving Up on TCI!

February 27, 2020 by Rob Roper Throughout the debate over The Transportation Climate Initiative (TCI), the convoluted scheme to squeeze up to $5.6 billion out of New England...

House Passes Global Warming Solutions Act, (105-37), 2020

. H.688 – AN ACT RELATING TO ADDRESSING CLIMATE CHANGE PASSED in the State House of Representatives on February 26, 2020, by a vote of 105-37 Purpose: The...

Roll Call! House Ducks Responsibility to Vote on Controversial CO2 Plan, (44-99), 2020

. H.688 – AN ACT RELATING TO ADDRESSING CLIMATE CHANGE – DONAHUE AMENDMENT FAILED in the State House of Representatives on February 20, 2020, by a vote of...

Return of the Thermal Utility – a Tax on Electricity

February 24, 2020 By John McClaughry A push is on in Montpelier to create the thermal utility so long sought by VPIRG. Unlike the version of 13 years...