Tensions have flared in Vermont, home to legislators and policy groups who like
touting their environmental bona fides.
The flash point is the state’s renewable energy requirements insisting state
utilities derive 75 percent of their electric power from renewable sources by
2032 and a non-legislated goal of generating a whopping 90 percent of all
Vermont’s energy from renewables by 2050.
“The state’s environmental program has divided the environmental community,”
said Mark Whitworth, executive director of the renewable advocacy group Energize
Vermont, who has a litany of complaints about the mandates, ranging from how the
requirements may alter the state’s landscape to charges that communities have
been shut out of the process.
Even the mandates’ chief proponent in the Vermont Legislature admits there’s
tension.
“There’s a real argument (about) what the future should be,” said Rep. Tony
Klein, D-East Montpelier.
The 75 percent requirement for electricity coming from renewable energy passed
overwhelmingly in the most recent legislative session, sailing through the state
House of Representatives in a 121-24 vote and the state Senate, 22-6. Gov. Peter
Shumlin, a Democrat, signed the bill into law in June.
But that hasn’t quieted critics of the mandate — as well as the much more
ambitious 90 percent goal, which, by its very scope, will force policymakers to
find a way to heat homes in the notoriously cold Vermont winters and power cars
and trucks with renewable sources.
“You say we want to have 90 percent renewables in the state of Vermont by 2050,”
said Rob Roper, president of the state’s free-market think tank, Ethan Allen
Institute. “Everybody says, oh, that’s great. We’re doing our part to save the
environment. Nobody is asked the question, either in the committee rooms or in
the press: What is the real cost? How much money is this going to cost and what
is the effect is this going to be on the landscape?”
The fact that a free-market group doesn’t like the mandates is not surprising,
but what raises eyebrows is that a couple of environmental groups don’t like
them either.
“My organization opposed the bill,” Whitworth told Watchdog.org. “Not because we
oppose renewable energy but because Vermont has done the easy part of the job
and hasn’t done the hard part of the job. The easy part of the job is defining
requirements. But they haven’t dealt with the siting and operational standards.”
Energize Vermont worries that in order to meet the renewable mandates, the state
will cut down forests to install solar panels and erect more wind turbines along
ridgelines.
Whitworth also says the three members of the Public Service Board — appointed by
Vermont’s governor to serve staggered, six-year terms — will run roughshod over
local concerns when the board makes decisions on public utilities.
“It totally ignores what a municipality might want,” Whitworth said. “Land use
questions have now become very important. Where do you want your 25 acres of
solar panels? Do you want to allow agricultural lands converted to electricity
production? How do 25 acres of solar panels fit in with the aesthetic vision
that a town has established for itself?”
Klein acknowledges the Public Service Board “can trump local opposition because
the certificate of public good is issued for the good of the entire state,” but
said the board has been in place since the 1970s.
“It’s only been now that people have been using it as an excuse to fight
something they don’t want to look at,” Klein told Watchdog.org in a telephone
interview.
The new energy goals are “ambitious and it’s going to require the development of
a lot of wind and a lot of solar in the state,” Klein said. “But that’s what we
want.”
Energize Vermont and other opponents especially don’t like the prospect of
constructing more wind farms along the state’s mountain ridges. Whitworth
describes it as “industrial wind development” that damages forests and their
ecoystems, while marring the landscape.
“We have a limited number of ridgelines that are ecologically sensitive and
they’re visible from everywhere,” Whitworth said.
“We have ski areas that do a whole lot more marring of ridgelines than
windfarms,” Klein said.
[to top of second column] |
Klein points out the renewable standards have drawn support from
a range of other green groups, including the Vermont Natural
Resources Council, the Vermont Public Interest Research Group and
Renewable Energy Vermont.
But the head of another environmental group came out against the
renewables bill when it was before the Legislature.
“This bill is more of the same,” Annette Smith, executive director
of Vermonters for a Clean Environment, testified in February, saying
it “perpetuates the disconnect between utilities/rates and
consumers” and later calling it a “shell game.”
One of the targets of Smith’s sharpest criticism is the fact
Vermont utilities can purchase lower-value credits from outside
sources, such as Hydro-Quebec in Canada, as part of meeting the
renewable requirements while selling higher-value wind and solar
credits.
“What really disturbs me is that they have set up an endless gold
mine for (financiers) and developers to profit off of Vermont’s
resources, our landscape, our aesthetics, the people who live here,
and give this illusion that we’re making all this progress on
renewable energy when we have absolutely no right to claim any of
the renewable attributes for all of these projects that we’re
sacrificing our state for,” Smith told Watchdog.org.
There have also been signs of locals bristling at some of the
state’s renewable directives.
Members of the board of selectmen in New Haven, Vermont have been
frustrated about what they say is a lack of municipal control over
the growth of solar arrays that exceed 300 kilowatts. In April, the
board announced it is challenging the Public Service Board in court.
“This could significantly impact the development of solar,” New
Haven Selectman Doug Tolles told the Addison County Independent.
“This is somewhat of a test case.”
Some residents in the town of Charlotte have complained about the
construction of “industrial solar” projects. The town’s energy
committee endorsed in February what Whitworth called the “Rutland
Resolution,” calling for more local input for all energy generation
plans.
Supporters say the renewable energy mandates are an important step
towards tackling climate change, predicting a cut of 15 million
metric tons in greenhouse gas emissions.
But Whitworth doubts those claims, as well as predictions Vermont
ratepayers will save upwards of $275 million.
“If we industrialize wildlife habitat and obstruct wildlife
corridors then we’re signing a death notice of large numbers of
species,” Whitworth said. “And we’re doing it on a bet that what
we’re doing actually reduces greenhouse gas emissions.”
Roper thinks more opposition will spring up, especially as the 75
percent electricity mandate comes closer to being enacted Jan. 1,
2017.
“You’ve got different environmental philosophies,” Roper said. “One
is, don’t build anything anywhere near anybody and preserve all the
open land and save all the animals. And they’re very much opposed to
this sort of industrialization of the Vermont landscape. Then you’ve
got the ‘save the climate from global warming’ crowd and they’re
basically willing to sacrifice Vermont on the altar of global
warming.”
“I think the point is that Vermont, and nowhere, cannot remain a
museum piece,” Klein said.
“Power is something that we all need, it’s something that we all
want. And for too long, people have been able to have the luxury of
flipping the light switch and having the power come on and have no
idea where their power has come from … It’s the responsible thing to
do, No. 1, to make sure the power that we use comes from the
cleanest source that we can get it from.”
“There are people who think that we have to save the planet and if
that mountain has to go, it has to go,” Whitworth said. “And then
there are those of us who think that the most important response to
climate change that we can make is the preservation of our wildlife
habitat.”
“It’s too bad we’re in this situation where we’re in this divide,”
said Smith. “There’s been tremendous damage to the trust in
government in Vermont.”
Click here to respond to the editor about this article
|
