By Ian Buchanan
There have been recent commentaries voicing support for H.289, which updates Vermont’s 2015 Renewable Energy Standard. These opinions often focus on how good the changes to the RES sound, but erroneous information is being floated and there’s little discussion about the unintended consequences that the proposed changes in H.289 create. Some items that deserve awareness from our legislators as they consider H.289 are as follows:
- Being renewable doesn’t mean that an electricity source is carbon-free. If we’re talking about climate, carbon-free, not renewable, is what matters. If climate is the primary concern, why are we trying to mandate eliminating carbon-free power sources like nuclear and hydro while preserving existing carbon-creating biomass sources?
- At least one recent commentary claims that much of Vermont’s electricity comes from the combustion of fossil fuels. According to the Vermont Department of Public Service, Electric Utility Resource Survey, 2023, even without Renewable Energy Credits (RECs), under 10% of Vermont’s electricity currently comes from fossil fuels. Much of the fossil fuel energy we use is bought off the ISO-NE grid to serve peak power when local renewable sources, specifically solar and wind, aren’t available.
Vermont’s electricity sector produces two percent of Vermont’s total greenhouse gases. Energy Action Network shows Vermont having the least carbon intensive electricity sector of any state in the U.S. Meanwhile, the transportation and heating sectors produce 72% of Vermont’s greenhouse gases. A pragmatic approach suggests these sectors are where our primary enablement efforts should focus.
- Related to the last point, I’ve seen no discussion as to what percentage of carbon-free energy sufficiently reduces greenhouse gas emissions from the state over the next ten years. Is it 90%, 95%, 100%? Achieving 100% carbon-neutral electricity has never been done at a large scale outside of regions with sufficient hydro or nuclear power. The systems we implement today may not be the standards of tomorrow; it’s short-sighted to lock us into them by legislative dictate of 100%.
- 289 relies a lot on using RECs to purchase power from the ISO-NE grid to achieve its “100% renewable” and local generation goals. While RECs are a necessary element in a complicated energy commodities market in transition, we shouldn’t live under the illusion that power bought with RECs reduces greenhouse gases. RECs are a human construct; the environment doesn’t recognize RECs and greenhouse gases ignore state and international borders.
- The long-duration energy storage solutions that allow solar and wind to be relied upon in Vermont year-round currently do not exist. The technology isn’t there yet. While solar and wind should be part of Vermont’s energy portfolio, where is the wisdom in putting most of our eggs into the technology that is currently least able to fulfill power demand when we need it most in Vermont (winter)?
- There’s been mention of a “remarkable collaborative effort” between legislators, the renewable energy industry, and utilities in creating H.289. Recognize that utilities are easy targets to demonize and they know it. In the face of powerful trade organizations that shape the future policy they will have to follow, utilities are cautiously vocalizing concerns about net-metering, grid challenges, and the prospective rate and reliability issues H.289 will exacerbate.
Vermont has already come close to experiencing localized blackout outages like those in California. H.289 will make this prospect more likely as large-scale back-up power sources are eliminated and Vermont is further disadvantaged on the ISO-NE grid.
- 289 advocates claim it will reduce emissions equivalent to 160,000-250,000 gas-burning cars by 2035. This number is based on the improbable assumption that additional electricity generation to meet demand would otherwise be from high-emission fossil fuels. The largest utility in the state, Green Mountain Power, currently shows 0% of its power coming from oil and natural gas (0.6% before RECs). It’s unlikely that Vermont utilities would suddenly start prioritizing oil and natural gas generation to meet future demand if H.289 is not enacted.
- Advocates often mention that the costs of implementing H.289 were grossly overestimated. The reality is that the broad range of estimated costs demonstrates how little we actually know. Related, the costs of unintended consequences go well beyond dollars. Without long-duration storage (technology that currently does not exist), H.289 almost guarantees an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. If we rely more on solar and wind and don’t access hydro and nuclear as much, more power from the ISO-NE grid power will need to be purchased to fulfill rising peak demands in the winter.
- As ethanol, RECs, and net-metering demonstrate, modifying mandates as times change can be nearly impossible. Mandating specific sources of energy at the expense of others stifles innovation and potentially backs us into a corner. It removes diversification from our energy portfolio and can force square pegs to be jammed into round holes.
Legislation to mandate incentives and technical solutions rarely stands the test of time. Because of political pressure from trade interests (lobbyists), it’s difficult for legislatures to modify approaches that may have once served a purpose but become obsolete over time. The 2015 Renewable Energy Standard constructed a visionary goal that is inspirational to those who recognize the need to adapt to the challenges of the future. Vermont utilities and power providers were given targets to achieve and, for the most part, embraced them. The logic of placing additional conditions for how utilities achieve the ambitious targets should raise the question of what’s intended and who benefits with this legislation.
While our small population may entitle us to the privilege of playing power generation favorites if desired, the other 99.8% of the nation’s population requires more powerful and diversified energy solutions. An isolationist approach to energy sends the wrong message, dismisses the necessity of energy portfolio diversification, and is disingenuous to the values and goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution.
It is time for actions that actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions and pollution over additional rhetoric and mandated favoritism. It is time to think critically and to be aware of the likely unintended consequences and precedence of bills like H.289.
Buchanan is a Waitsfield business founder and owner who lives in East Montpelier.
