Big wind developer Blittersdorf gives $1,000 to Dem House candidate Sims

By Guy Page

Katherine Sims, the Democratic candidate in a highly-contested House race, has received $1,000 in campaign donations this year from wind power developer David Blittersdorf, election records show.

Sims and Republican Vicki Strong are both incumbents. But the 2022 Vermont Legislature created a new district, Orleans 4 (Albany, Craftsbury, Glover, and Greensboro) pitting two incumbents against each other in the one-seat district.

Rep. Katherine Sims, left, and wind developer and advocate David Blittersdorf

Vermont Secretary of State campaign finance records show that Blittersdorf made one $500 donation on May 9, and another $500 donation on August 11 — two days after the August 9 primary.

Blittersdorf is Vermont’s leading developer and backer of wind power. He led a partnership that erected the Georgia Mountain four-turbine project in Milton. He opposed local government intervention in Green Mountain Power’s Kingdom Wind project in Lowell, pooh-poohing some residents’ concerns about health effects. His 2015 proposed Kidder Mountain wind turbine project in Irasburg faced immediate, organized community pushback. It was not built.

Blittersdorf is also a longtime member of the Board of Directors of VPIRG, the influential lobby group that has consistently supported legislation and permitting to for construction and subsidization of wind power in Vermont. He also is a solar power developer and has lobbied hard for state funding to build tracks between Montpelier and Barre for several self-propelled diesel-powered commuter train cars he owns.

The contributions may be significant because Blittersdorf is known in State House circles as a generous campaign donor who closely watches the voting records of his campaign contribution recipients. The winner of the Orleans-4 race will have a vote in the next session’s renewable power and climate change legislation.

Like all other Democrats (except one), Sims voted to override Gov. Phil Scott’s veto of the Clean Heat Standard last year. The veto failed only because a retiring Democrat lawmaker, Tom Bock of Chester, voted with Republicans – including Strong. The Clean Heat Standard would have siphoned money from fossil fuel sales to pay for renewable power and energy efficiency projects.

Guy Page is publisher of the Vermont Daily Chronicle. Reprinted with permission.

Spread the love

4 thoughts on “Big wind developer Blittersdorf gives $1,000 to Dem House candidate Sims

  1. Katherine Sims likely does not know anything about energy systems, so Blittersdorf gives her $1000 to help her get elected, and get her vote when additional subsidies are needed for his wind projects, etc.

  2. Here is something Blittersdorf, and other windy folks, need to consider:

    Big wind and solar is very expensive, as explained in this article.

    GRID-SCALE BATTERY SYSTEMS IN NEW ENGLAND TO COUNTERACT SHORTFALL OF ONE-DAY WIND/SOLAR LULL
    https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/grid-scale-battery-systems-in-new-england

    Pairing Wind and Solar Systems with Battery Systems in New England

    If the fossil (coal, oil, gas) and nuclear plants were shut down, as part of the subsidy-chasing ZERO-carbon craze, and if hydro and tree-burning plants remained at about 10% of the NE grid load, the main power sources would be wind, solar and battery systems.
    Each wind and solar system should be required to have its own battery system to act as:

    1) Dampers of output variations
    2) Storage, in case of wind/solar lulls

    If 50% of the annual electricity loaded onto the NE grid were from wind and solar, the average active battery power capacity would be 6145.8 MW, for a one-day lull.

    The electricity leaving the battery would be 6145.8 MW x 24 h = 147,500 MWh, or 0.147500 TWh, as calculated under Step-by-Step Battery System Losses, Step 2

    We assume there would be at least 4500 battery modules, each about 3 MW.
    Some units likely would be down for scheduled and unscheduled outages
    Each module would be rated to provide 3 MW for 24 hours; current modules provide at most 4 hours.

    The rated delivery of electricity would be 4500 x 3 x 24 = 259,700 MWh, as AC

    The turnkey capital cost would be 259,700 MWh x $400/kWh, as AC = $1,037 billion, lasting about 15 years

    All of the rated delivery would be not available, because, to achieve long operating life, say 15 years:

    The battery, when new, would deliver 4500 x 3 x 24 x 0.6, availability factor (as above calculated) = 194,400 MWh
    The battery, when aged, could deliver 194,400 x 0.8, aging factor = 155,520 MWh, which is slightly greater than 147,500 MWh

    NOTE: Any electricity passing through the battery system would have a loss of about 18%, if new, about 20%, if aged.
    That loss would need to be generated, if wind/solar provide 50% of the grid load, and other generators provide the other 50%.
    See Step-by-Step Battery System Losses

    Multi-Day and Second Wind/Solar Lulls

    Wind/solar lulls often last 1 to 3 days, but some lulls last 5 to 7 days, and may be followed by a second multi-day lull a few days later, as happen in Germany (See above images) and in NE, when the battery systems may not yet be adequately full, because they could have been at about 10 or 20% full after counteracting the first lull.

    In case of a second lull, 1) a spare battery system, and/or 2) adequate standby CCGT plant capacity, MW, staffed, kept in good order, with adequate full storage systems, would be required for continuous electric service.

  3. From Vermont Biz 04/21/2020 “Blittersdorf: Crisis = Change: by David Blittersdorf, AllEarth Renewables We are in the beginning of the largest crisis our world has seen in almost a century. COVID-19 has rapidly triggered a human health and economic disaster in our fragile modern society, the likes of which we have never experienced before.”

    Appears Mr. Blittersdorf found profiteering on manufactured crises a sure bet. I’m sure he’s a big fan of Yuval Noah Harai as well. Globalists love Vermont ignorance, it makes them copious amounts of money.

  4. Beware the progressive/liberal false dichotomy – ‘We All Do It’. No, we don’t! The issue here isn’t that someone donates to a politician with whom they agree, and then expects something in return. Yes, “…we all do the same”. But that’s not the point to this VDC article.

    What is important is that this fellow, Bittersdorf, is not only a wind and solar power developer. He’s a longtime member of the Board of Directors of VPIRG, the influential lobby group that has consistently supported legislation and permitting for construction and subsidization of wind and solar power in Vermont.

    And Bittersdorf is not the only blatant example of this crony capitalism. Remember Duane Peterson and James Moore, VPIRG board members who transformed their pilot program, ‘VPIRG Energy’, into ‘Solar Communities’ (SunCommon), and then sold their company for $40 million.

    It’s not that Bittersdorf develops and profits from wind and solar power ventures that is problematic. But it is a gross conflict of interest that he sits on the largest so-called nonprofit consumer and environmental advocacy organization in the state. VPIRG may have IRS non-profit status. But it is anything but “…a non-partisan public interest advocacy” group. And its calling card (‘Vermont Public Interest Research Group’) is as deceptive as the plethora of other misleading titles facing us these days.

    Be it the National Education Association, the Affordable Care Act, the Inflation Reduction Act, the Reproductive Liberty Amendment – these titles are oxymorons intended to deceive a public that otherwise doesn’t understand how deceptive their representatives have become.

    Thanks to Guy Page, and others, for pointing out these false dichotomies and allowing commentary that gives us readers the opportunity to expose these wolves in sheep’s clothing.

Comments are closed.