8 thoughts on “Poll: Majority of Vermonters oppose TCI Tax/GWSA lawsuits”

1. A RATIONAL ALTERNATIVE FOR VERMONT INSTEAD OF GWSA

   California: California has had a GWSA law since 2006, which resulted in:

   – Rapid increases of electric rates and gasoline prices
   – Huge DUCK-curves, due to midday solar electricity surges
   – Unwise/untimely/political/ideological shutdown of gas plants, which resulted in rolling blackouts, when, during a multi-day heat wave, solar disappearing in late-afternoon/early-evening (DURING PEAK HOURS), and not reappearing until mid-morning THE NEXT DAY, while all that time wind was minimal.
   – A host of rules, regulations, taxes, fees and surcharges, and penalties to enforce behavior modification programs

   With high levels of weather-dependent wind and solar, huge storage (multiple TWh) would be required.
   That storage would cost several trillion dollars, if materials could be found to build such capacity. It would need to cover:

   1) Single and multi-day heat waves over large areas
   2) Wind/solar lulls throughout the year, as frequently occur in New England
   3) Short-term and seasonal variations.

   The ADDITIONAL environmental impact on millions of acres with wind and solar systems, would be enormous all over the US.

   It would be much better to build millions of PASSIVHAUS-style buildings all over the US.
   They would need only 1/3 the energy of the current energy hogs.

   http://www.truenorthreports.com/welcome-to-hell-says-california-policy-expert-where-global-warming-solutions-act-passed-in-2006

   Vermont: For Vermont, the only thing that makes any sense is to stop “emulating” California.
   Vermont should immediately scrap GWSA, and concentrate on:

   1) Energy conservation
   2) Energy efficiency
   3) Building net-zero-energy, and energy-surplus houses and other buildings, by the thousands, each year. See Appendix
   4) Provide incentives to buy vehicles that get more than 35 mpg, EPA combined; the more above the limit, the greater the incentive.
   5) Charge annual fees, paid at time of registration, on existing and new vehicles that get less than 25 mpg, EPA combined; the more below the limit, the greater the fee.

   The above 4 items would save money for Vermonters, and make the state economy more competitive
   Most of the other energy measures are just expensively subsidized hogwash and behavior modifications that would not make one iota of difference regarding climate change.

2. EAN Claimed a CO2 Reduction per ASHP Much Greater Than in Reality.

   ASHPs, in average Vermont 2000 ft2 houses, have a CO2 reduction of about 2.389 Mt/y per ASHP, much less than the 4.111 Mt/y per ASHP claimed by the artificial/political EAN method.

   EAN would need 90000 x 4.111/2.389 = 139,385 ASHPs to achieve its CO2 reduction of 0.37 MMt/y, in 2025
   Much more ASHP capacity would be needed at each site, which would require much more capital cost. See table 1A
   http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-co2-reduction-of-ashps-is-based-on-misrepresentations

3. EAN Claimed a CO2 Reduction per EV Much Greater Than in Reality.

   If EAN had compared EVs with 30-mpg vehicles, the CO2 reduction would be about 2.13 Mt/y, much less than the 4.50 Mt/y claimed by the artificial/political EAN method.
   EAN used 22.7 mpg, EPA combined, the average of ALL registered vehicles!
   EAN used a CO2/kWh at least 8 times less than the NE grid, to make EVs look better than other vehicles, regarding CO2 emissions!
   With such assumptions, anything can be made to look good to lay people
   The average Vermont person/legislator likely would not be able to determine any EAN analysis flaws.

   For realism, EAN should have used my 2019 Subaru Outback, which averages 32 mpg in summer and 29 mpg in winter; has vastly more storage capacity than a medium-size EV, which costs 1.5 to 2 times as much as my Subaru.

   EAN would need 90000 x 4.50/2.13 = 190,141 EVs to achieve its CO2 reduction of 0.405 MMt/y, at end 2025
   Many more people would need to be driving EVs, which would require more capital cost. See table 1A
   http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-co2-reduction-of-evs-is-based-on-a-misrepresentation

4. This article explains in detail why GWSA is a very bad idea.

   VERMONT’S GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS ACT, A DISASTER IN THE MAKING
   https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-s-global-warming-solutions-act-a-disaster-in-the-making

   CEP GROSS EMISSION REDUCTIONS AND COSTS; THREE PHASES

   CEP Financial Implications

   Almost no one, including most legislators, have any idea regarding the reductions of CO2 and the turnkey capital cost to achieve them.

   Here is a brief summary of the turnkey capital cost of Phase 1, i.e., reduce CO2 by at least 26% below 2005
   The below CO2 emissions reductions for Phases 1, 2, and 3 are based on the VT-CEP goals, as mandated by GWSA.

   Phase 1
   26%+ below 2005, i.e., (1 – 0.27) x 10.22 = 7.46 MMt, by Jan. 1, 2025, to “meet Paris”
   The Council would take about a year to develop plans, which means most of 2021 would have elapsed before any action.

   The actual CO2 reduction would be from 9.02, at end 2018 (latest numbers) to 7.46, Jan. 1, 2025, or 1.56 MMt, during the years 2022, 2023, and 2024, effectively a 3-y period.

   The turnkey capital cost would be about 1.56/2.28 x 13.70 = $9.37 billion, or $3.12 billion/y
   The CO2 reduction appears to be a physical and financial impossibility.
   See table 1 and Note.

   Phase 2
   40%+ below 1990, i.e., (1 – 0.40) x 8.59 = 5.15 MMt, by Jan. 1, 2030
   The CO2 reduction would be 7.46, Jan 1, 2025 – 5.15, Jan. 1, 2030 = 2.31 MMt, during the 5-y period
   No capital cost estimate was made.

   Phase 3
   80%+ below 1990, i.e., (1 – 0.80) x 8.59 = 1.72 MMt, by January 1, 2050
   The CO2 reduction would be 5.15, Jan. 1, 2030 – 1.72, Jan. 1 2050 = 3.43 MMt, during the 20-y period
   No capital cost estimate was made.

5. World energy use, all sources, was about 550 quads, in 2018
   US energy use is about 100 quads of energy per year; it has been nearly constant for 20 years.

   World coal, oil, and gas consumption was 88% of total energy consumption in 1993
   World coal (29%), oil (34%) and gas (24%) consumption was 87% in 2018, TWENTY-SEVEN YEARS LATER

   Why is that?

   China, India, and other developing Asian countries, and Africa, and Middle and South America are more or less EXEMPT FROM THE PARIS AGREEMENTS
   See page 10 of URL
   https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporat…

   It is beyond ludicrous for New England to have any carbon taxes, and wind turbines, and solar panels, because they produce expensive electricity, which would act as a brake on NE economic growth.

   Wind and solar produce EXPENSIVE, GRID-DISTURBING electricity.
   They benefit mostly CHINA (solar panels) and EUROPEAN COMPANIES (wind turbines).

   NE should focus on ENERGY EFFICIENCY, and NET ZERO ENERGY BUILDINGS, AND HIGH MILEAGE VEHICLES.
   That would greatly decrease costs and CO2 of households and businesses, and make the NE ECONOMY MORE COMPETITIVE.

   In 2018, world hydro, plus wind/solar, plus other renewables, plus biomass (mostly wood) was about 30 quads in 2018
   World wind/solar was about 10 quads in 2018, less than 2%.
   It would take many decades, for those energy sources to attain 30% or 50%
   https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/10/18/the-truth-behind-renewable-energy/

6. There sure are a whole bunch of “no opinions” in this poll.
   Like the plastic bag ban (H.113, signed into law 2019)
   Stormwater regulation changes ( Act 64, signed into law 2015)
   The GWSA (H.688, veto overridden 2020) gets it’s teeth years in the future.
   There might be a few less “no opinions” then.
   Apathy by voters has gotten us where we are today. The legislature and lobbyists have figured out long ago how to capitalize on this apathy to succeed with their agendas.
   The Silent Majority is alive and not doing so well in Vermont.
   Unfortunately, we all are forced to live with the consequence of apathy.

   • You nailed it. The ‘majority’ can’t be bothered to follow what their elected officials are doing. When they get the bill it will be too late.

   • Did you read or hear anything about the GWSA in the media other than the air will be cleaner? Did any legislator who voted for it explain just what it means?
     I talked to a number of people about it and they had no idea. They will have to find out the painful way.

Comments are closed.