This week, the House voted in favor of H.287, an act relating to the Renewable Energy Standard, by a vote of 99-39, with eleven members absent. Even with a half-dozen or so Democrats joining all of the Republicans in voting NO, it looks like the Democratic Party leadership has twisted enough arms, if everyone were present, to override a gubernatorial veto. Here’s to hoping Senators have more common sense.
The overall issue with this bill is that, by some estimates, it will cost electric utilities an additional $1 billion to purchase power over the next decade. When fully implemented, this means as much as an additional $192 will be tacked onto the average Vermonter’s annual electric bill. This is on top of other factors leading to higher costs, such as increased demand, inflation, etc.
The added cost in H.289 comes largely from the fact that lawmakers are forcing utilities to buy more in-state renewable energy from companies that are, coincidentally, major donors to their campaigns and causes. The utilities themselves and the Department of Public Service backed another plan to meet the Net Zero emissions goals for a fraction of the cost by allowing the utilities to buy clean power from any available source. But this bill isn’t really about emissions, it’s about cronyism.
So, what do regular old Vermonters get for this added expense? Not a damn thing!
This point was made clear in a floor debate exchange between Representatives Gina Galfetti (R-Barre Town) and Laura Sibilia (1-Dover: pictured above). Well, clear despite the rhetorical smoke screen of jargon and obfuscation (that’s a polite term for the fecal waste of a male bovine) thrown up by Sibilia, which was truly monumental. Let’s analyze!
Here’s Galfetti’s question, “Scientifically speaking, what impact will moving the RES target up by two years and increasing the mandate from [75] percent to 100 percent renewables, as S.289 would have us do, have on future climate trends and extreme weather events in Vermont?” Pretty straightforward. Could answered with one word: none.
Instead, after re-stating the question a couple of times Sibilia starts spewing the kind of word salad non-answer to a simple question that she is, hat tip, the master of. I’ll interject my thoughts in brackets and italics as they occur.
SIBILIA: “One of the important factors of the work that Vermont has done around climate change is committing to the Paris Accords. Why is that important? [It’s not. Particularly in regard to the question? But do go on….] That is important because there are other much larger countries, much larger states, that are also committed to the Paris Accords and to reducing carbon emissions. Why does that matter for Vermont? [It doesn’t. You’re presenting something irrelevant as if it were a relevant point in order to avoid answering the question.] We – and as someone who lives in rural Vermont I feel acutely – we run the risk if we are not keeping apace of falling pretty far behind and falling behind pretty quickly [Now, here’s an opening for Galfetti to ask, okay, what are the consequences of ‘falling behind’ in terms of impact on future climate trends and extreme weather events in Vermont? Answer: none, unless you count Vermont ratepayers saving a billion dollars as a consequence.], and our most vulnerable will be subjected to that falling behind. [Another opening to ask really? How so?] We’ve seen this with the transition —
At this point, Representative Joe Parsons (R-Newbury) called for a point of order, stating what should have been obvious to any rational person in the room: “I’m hearing a speech and not an answer. I don’t think she’s giving an answer; I think she’s just giving a speech.” Yup! But Speaker Jill Krowinsky (D-Burlington), of course, ruled that Sibilia’s “answer” was just fine. Let’s get back to it….
SIBILIA: “We frequently have this debate here when we are talking about the energy transition: ‘This is not going to fix the climate here in Vermont.’ And we are not an island here. [No, we’re not. Without China, Russia, India, etc. on board doing these same things – and they are emphatically not on board — our efforts here are entirely wasted. So how is this worth an extra billion dollars on your constituents’ electric bills?] So, what is the effect that this Renewable Energy Standard is going to have on the climate here in Vermont? It’s the same that it will have across the United States. [Yes, none. Why can’t you just say that? NONE!]
It’s not going to stop the impacts of climate change we are seeing and feeling right now here. What it will help with is allowing more distributed energy, more renewable energy in our state and gives us greater resilience for stronger storms and more frequent storms which we are seeing in Vermont. You know, some of our utility folks let me know whenever there are hurricane force winds now just because it’s pretty wild that that’s a regular occurrence and causing damage.
Okay, stop the tape! This is just absurd. How is more renewable energy – wind and solar – which are, in the best of circumstances, intermittent, non-baseload power – going to make us more resilient in the face of hurricane-force winds, etc.? The most wind-resistant wind turbines automatically shut down – stop producing any power whatsoever – when wind speeds hit 55 mph – 18 mph, LESS than when hurricane-force winds kick in at 72 mph. And since more rain means more clouds, which means less efficient solar generation, if we are really experiencing hurricane-force winds and the cloud cover that generally accompanies more flooding as a regular occurrence, mandating more reliance on in-state wind and solar is the last thing we should be doing.
What H.289 does is add the injury of making us LESS RESILIENT in the face of extreme weather to the insult of having to pay a billion dollars more for less reliable power. Sibilia is just flat-out lying here. Call her out!
But back to the debate…. Galfetti asks, “Okay, so I just want to be clear. Basically, ratepayers are going to have to purchase carbon [Renewable Energy] credits [or RECs] in order to not be able to measure any impact on climate change in the state of Vermont. I want to be sure that’s correct.” And here, Galfetti falls into the trap you have to be wary of when dealing with someone educated in the Bill Clinton School of It Depends on What the Definition of ‘Is’ Is.
SIBILIA – Rate payers are not required to purchase credits. None of our utilities are required to purchase credits, and when they do it is usually to maintain rates and to manage rates…. So, RECs are typically a means of keeping rates low. Low-er.
Again, stop the tape! No, ratepayers don’t ‘purchase’ RECs directly, they are forced to pay the cost of them in their electric bills. Sibilia knows this. No, utilities aren’t ‘required’ to purchase RECs if they can get all of their power from sources deemed renewable by the RES, which happens never. Sibilia knows this. That’s not what Galfetti was getting at, and Sibilia knows that too. And to insinuate that the government forcing utilities to buy RECs – an artificial cost placed on top of the actual cost of the power — to utilize certain sources of power is somehow a tool for lowering electric rates for customers is at best a grotesque attempt to mislead people.
Even so, the REC discussion was an unnecessary rabbit hole to open up and get dragged into. Who buys RECs, and a detailed discussion of how they work is at best tangential to the main point: H.289 raises the cost of electricity by as much as a billion dollars, and Vermonters get no benefit from that added expense. Ergo, there is no good reason to vote for this bill.
The floor debate over H.289 went on for roughly four hours – largely like this (I watch this stuff so you don’t have to…). And this post covering about seven minutes of it is already getting long, so I’ll wind up with one more whopper told by Laura Sibilia:
Is that [the RES] going to fix the climate in Vermont? It’s not going to fix the climate in Vermont, but it’s going to help fix – it’s going to help slow the climate change impacts globally. [Emphasis added.]
Good grief! The follow-up question to that is, “Really? By how much?” Answer: By no detectible amount. And, “Is that worth another billion dollars coming out of already struggling Vermonters’ pockets?” I’ll answer more succinctly than the Representative from Dover. “No.” It is not.
