Roper: Questions for the Vermont Climate Council

By Rob Roper

As the Vermont Climate Council readies its plans to dramatically reduce Vermont’s greenhouse gas emissions, they embarked on a series of public engagement events to field questions from curious citizens. Here are some we all might consider asking.

Transportation: From the council’s discussions, it appears you are going to recommend putting over 40,000 electric vehicles on Vermont’s roads by 2025 (1 out of every 4 new vehicle purchases). There are only about 4,000 EVs on our roads today. Logistically, how do you intend to do this over a three-year period? How much will it cost? Where will the money come from? Does the infrastructure exist (electricity generation and delivery) to support this many EVs even if you are able to coerce 42,000 people into buying them? If not, how do you intend to put that infrastructure into place in just three years? How much will that cost? Where will that money come from?

Rob Roper is the president of the Ethan Allen Institute.

How much revenue would the Transportation Fund for road/infrastructure maintenance lose (it is funded through gasoline and diesel taxes) if this proposal is successful, and how would that revenue be made up? The Council has discussed “fee-bates” for higher MPG vehicles? What would that look like and how would it work?

Housing: From the council’s discussions, it appears you are going to recommend weatherizing 150,000 homes at a cost of $10,000 per home. That amounts to $1.5 billion (an amount more than twice the annual revenue derived from the state personal income tax). Where will this $1.5 billion come from? If you manage to find the money, given the labor shortage crisis and supply chain issues we are currently experiencing, is it even possible to find enough skilled workers and materials in Vermont to do this?

It appears you are going to recommend mandates for “net zero” building construction by 2030, eliminating the use of fossil fuels for cooking and water heating by 2035 and for space heating by 2040. Can you explain what this will mean for the average homeowner, landlord, renter, and business? How is this going to be achieved and who will be expected to pay for it? Should we all be saving up for government mandated kitchen re-models?

One suggestion raised in council debate was a mandate for transitioning at “time of sale,” meaning a property would not be legally saleable unless all these expensive mandates were completed. What impact will that have on property values? How many Vermonters, especially low-income folks who can’t afford multi-thousand-dollar renovations, would you expect to be stuck with un-salable properties as a result of this policy?

We are experiencing an affordable housing crisis in Vermont. How will the council’s overall recommendations impact the cost of housing, especially low-income housing, and rent in this state, as well as availability via new construction?

Economy: How many Vermonters in the fossil fuel and related businesses (gas stations, mini-marts, heating fuel delivery, etc.) will lose their jobs as a result of the council’s recommendations? How will the recommendations of the council impact Vermont’s largest private employers, such as Global Foundries, and how would the recommendations affect the chances of other large-scale, private sector employers with good paying jobs moving into Vermont?

Vermont’s organic dairy farms recently lost one of their most lucrative markets (Danone/Horizon Organic). If organic Vermont dairy farms are having trouble finding markets, and the council’s recommendations are to regulate conventional dairy farms out of viability, what are the overall implications for the future of the dairy industry in our state?

At the Aug. 8 meeting of the Just Transitions subcommittee, a member described the need to “shift the burden [of climate change] to the privileged.” Can you define who “the privileged” are, and what this statement means?

Actual Impact. At the first public hearing, citizens reportedly said they hoped the council’s proposals would maintain Vermont’s four distinct seasons, the optimal conditions for maple sugaring, and conditions for snow sports in the winter. (Source: VT Digger, 9/22/21). So, if fully implemented, what impact would the council’s plans actually have on future climate trends such as these? During council debate, one member stated, “We can go negative emissions tomorrow, and for everybody in Vermont we’re still going to be dealing with the same issues [regarding climate change],” meaning the actual impact of these proposals on the changing climate is nil. How can you justify spending billions of scarce taxpayer dollars on programs that don’t actually solve the problems they are expected to solve?

And, lastly, if the goal of the council is the total electrification of Vermont’s transportation sector, housing sector (heat, water, etc.), what happens when the increasingly unpredictable and more violent weather patterns you are forecasting for the future knock out power for extended periods of time? We can’t warm ourselves, feed ourselves, or move ourselves to where we could otherwise do these things? Is this colossally foolish or are we missing something?

Rob Roper is president of the Ethan Allen Institute. He lives in Stowe.

Image courtesy of Public domain

28 thoughts on “Roper: Questions for the Vermont Climate Council

  1. Climate has always changed. The real problem is the world population which no one is willing to talk about. There are about four time more people than in 1927. We are simply over populated and poisoning ourselves. You may recall decades ago, that technology will solve the population problem.
    The last column are those stuck in urban centers.
    2020 7,794,798,739 1.05 % 81,330,639 52 4,378,993,944 56 %
    2010 6,956,823,603 1.22 % 84,056,510 47 3,594,868,146 52 %
    1980 4,458,003,514 1.77 % 77,497,414 30 1,754,201,029 39 %
    1960 3,034,949,748 1.86 % 55,373,563 20 1,023,845,517 34 %
    1951 2,584,034,261 1.88 % 47,603,112 17 775,067,697 30 %
    1927 2,000,000,000

  2. An interesting documentary on wind farms in Sweden … but one of the most interesting things to me was the manifestation of the police state at about the 1 hour and 18 minute mark.

    The person talking to Greta was an engineer and worked in banks, and found that the wind farms were really all about profits– in other words, pigs wearing the lipstick of fighting CO2 warming (which doesn’t exist to any degree to worry about.) He’s one of the moving forces in the documentary. Very interesting scene, especially since it comes after an interview with a UN official on the importance of individual input into decisions that supposedly have to be made at a higher level to save the planet.

  3. Mr. Roper clearly points out the danger of putting ideology ahead and wishful thinking ahead of practicality that is inherent in this law passed over Governor Scott’s veto.

    There are in fact practical ways that can and should be used to limit our use of fuel. The Window Dresser program which took place in eleven Vermont communities this fall is a good example. Volunteers for local energy committees measure windows to be fitted with high quality window inserts which are put in to existing window frames in the winter. Low income Vermonters can get the cost of the inserts subsidized, and all who are able are excepted to help by doing a three hour shift with the final construction of the inserts. In the towns of Thetford and Strafford that have worked together on this project in my area, over 1,000 inserts have been made.

    Rather than imposing ridiculous and unobtainable mandates, expanding programs that have been shown to work and increase community cooperation may be a far better option. The Vermont Yourth Conservation Corp, whose members help run and improve our State Parks and trails, may be a good one to take this on and expansion of this program as well as involving local school shop classes.

    • Re: “There are in fact practical ways that can and should be used to limit our use of fuel.”

      Unfortunately, there is little difference between ‘imposing ridiculous and unobtainable mandates’ and ‘expanding programs that have been shown to work’.

      The question is, who determines what and why a program ‘works’ and how and why it should be ‘expanded’. Consider the debate between solar and wind power vs. Hydro Quebec power at less than half the cost.

      Answer: Let ‘the market’ decide. The choices are infinite – if we allow choices. Those who make mistakes will learn soon enough (as long as they aren’t artificially subsidized) and correct their decisions based on the usual cost/benefit analysis that determines all supply and demand scenarios.



    Comparison of CO2 Reduction in my House versus EAN Estimate

    CO2 Reduction due to HPs is minimal

    No HPs:
    CO2 of propane was 850 gal/y x 12.7 lb CO2/gal, combustion only = 4.897 Mt/y

    With HPs:
    The CO2 reduction is calculated in two ways using the:

    1) EAN method, based on commercial contracts, aka power purchase agreements, PPAs (market based)
    2) ISO-NE method, based on fuels combusted by power plants connected to the NE grid (location based)
    See Appendix for details.

    Market Based: Per state mandates, utilities have PPAs with Owners of low-CO2 power sources, such as wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, biomass, in-state and out-of-state. Utilities crow about being “low-CO2” by signing papers, i.e., without spending a dime.

    CO2 of propane was 550 gal/y x 12.7 lb CO2/gal, combustion only = 3.168 Mt/y
    CO2 of electricity was 2,489 kWh x 33.9 g/kWh = 0.084 Mt/y
    Total CO2 = 3.168 + 0.084 = 3.253 Mt/y
    CO2 reduction is 4.897 – 3.253 = 1.644 Mt/y, based on the 2018 VT-DPS “paper-based” value of 33.9 g CO2/kWh

    Location Based: CO2 of power sources connected to the NE grid

    CO2 of propane was 550 gal/y x 12.7 lb CO2/gal, combustion only = 3.168 Mt/y
    CO2 of electricity was 2,489 kWh x 317 g/kWh = 0.789 Mt/y
    Total CO2 = 3.168 + 0.789 = 3.897 Mt/y
    CO2 reduction is 4.897 – 3.897 = 0.939 Mt/y, based on the 2018 realistic ISO-NE value of 317 g CO2/kWh

    Cost of CO2 Reduction is (2059/y, amortizing – 204/y, energy cost savings + 200/y, service, parts, labor)/0.939 Mt/y, CO2 reduction = $2,188/Mt, which is outrageously expensive.

    EAN Excessive CO2 Reduction Claim

    EAN claims 90,000 HPs by 2025 would reduce 0.37 million Mt of CO2, in 2025, or 0.37 million/90,000 = 4.111 Mt/y, per HP system. EAN claims 100% displacement of fuel, i.e., gas, propane, fuel oil.

    Those claims are true, only for highly sealed and highly insulated houses, which represent about 1.5% of all Vermont houses.
    However, operating HPs at low temperatures, would have a greater cost per hour than using the displaced fuel. See table 3 and page 5 of URL

    27.6% Fuel Displacement: Vermont houses with HPs, operated down to about 28F, would require 2085 kWh/y, to deliver 21,400,000 Btu, at an average COP of 3.34, to displace 27.6% of space heat, at an electricity cost of $417/y, per VT-DPS survey

    35% Fuel Displacement: My HPs, operated down to 15F, would require 2,489 kWh/y, to deliver 20,220,000 Btu, at an average COP of 2.64, to displace 35% of my space heat, at an electricity cost of $498/y

    100% Fuel Displacement: My HPs, operated down to -10F, would require about 8,997 kWh/y, to deliver 57,290,000 Btu, at an average COP of 2.07, to displace 100% of my space heat, at an electricity cost of $1,799/y. This would displace 850 gal of propane, at a cost of 850 x $2.339/gal = $1,988/y. My energy cost savings would be 1988 – 1799 = $189/y, on an investment of $24,000!!!

    • Willem:
      You are absolutely correct. There has been no bigger fraud committed on Vermonters than the absolute misrepresentation of heat pumps. I will not go into all the detail here, but only to say it was the biggest and costliest mistake we ever made, and on top of that one unit has not functioned all summer long. We dug out the old window air conditioner which works just fine, to alleviate some of the misery that heat pumps created.
      Three months ago, we contacted a contractor who is very busy it seems, to come by and give us some suggestions on how to extricate ourselves from this mess, at that time he told us Oct 25, would be the first day he could appear here. I said, “Bring it on on the 25th”. Maybe we’ll have a heat pump auction, who knows. E V has been notified, BTW.



    I installed three heat pumps by Mitsubishi, rated 24,000 Btu/h at 47F, Model MXZ-2C24NAHZ2, each with 2 heads, each with remote control; 2 in the living room, 1 in the kitchen, and 1 in each of 3 bedrooms.
    The HPs have DC variable-speed, motor-driven compressors and fans, which improves the efficiency of low-temperature operation.
    The HPs last about 15 years. Turnkey capital cost was $24,000

    My Well-Sealed, Well-Insulated House

    The HPs are used for heating and cooling my 35-y-old, 3,600 sq ft, well-sealed/well-insulated house, except the basement, which has a near-steady temperature throughout the year, because it has 2” of blueboard, R-10, on the outside of the concrete foundation and under the basement slab, which has saved me many thousands of space heating dollars over the 35 years.

    I do not operate my HPs at 15F or below, because HPs would become increasingly less efficient with decreasing temperatures.
    The HP operating cost per hour would become greater than of my efficient propane furnace. See table 3

    High Electricity Prices

    Vermont forcing, with subsidies and/or GWSA mandates, the build-outs of expensive RE electricity systems, such as wind, solar, batteries, etc., would be counter-productive, because it would:

    1) Increase already-high electric rates and
    2) Worsen the already-poor economics of HPs (and of EVs)!!

    Energy Cost Reduction is Minimal

    – HP electricity consumption was from my electric bills
    – Vermont electricity prices, including taxes, fees and surcharges, are about 20 c/kWh.
    – My HPs provide space heat to 2,300 sq ft, about the same area as an average Vermont house
    – Two small propane heaters (electricity not required) provide space heat to my 1,300 sq ft basement
    – My average HP coefficient of performance, COP, was 2.64, which required, at 35% displacement of fuel, 2489 kWh; 100% displacement would require 8997 kWh
    – The average Vermont house COP was 3.34, which required, at 27.6% displacement, 2085 kWh, per VT-DPS/CADMUS survey.
    – I operate my HPs at temperatures of 15F and greater; less $/h than propane
    – I operate my traditional propane system at temperatures of 15F and less; less $/h than HP

    Before HPs: I used 100 gal for domestic hot water + 250 gal for 2 stoves in basement + 850 gal for Viessmann furnace, for a total propane of 1,200 gal/y

    After HPs: I used 100 gal for DHW + 250 gal for 2 stoves in basement + 550 gal for Viessmann furnace + 2,489 kWh of electricity.

    My propane cost reduction for space heating was 850 – 550 = 300 gallon/y, at a cost of 2.339/gal = $702/y
    My displaced fuel was 100 x (1 – 550/850) = 35%, which is better than the Vermont average of 27.6%
    My purchased electricity cost increase was 2,489 kWh x 20 c/kWh = $498/y

    My energy cost savings due to the HPs were 702 – 498 = $204/y, on an investment of $24,000!!

    Amortizing Heat Pumps

    Amortizing the $24,000 turnkey capital cost at 3.5%/y for 15 years costs about $2,059/y.
    This is in addition to the amortizing of my existing propane system. I am losing money.

  6. Meanwhile…GAZ METRO/GMP is licking its lips, drooling over the numbers: PROFITS GALORE!
    The more we rely on a grid we have no control over, the less self-reliant we are.
    What happens when the electricity goes out?
    Can’t cook – no electricity and no woodstoves for backup.
    Can’t see to cook because people have forgotten what fire was FIRST for, and forgot how to make candles.
    Can’t communicate with anyone because the fiber optics, digital devices, and servers are all down.
    Can’t call anyone to help because their EV’s can’t charge for the distance to drive and back.

    Welcome to the State of Dependence Chinarmont.
    Yeah… I dreamed of this day all my life…it was always my dream. Yeah. This dream of being plugged in and dependent on a foreign POWER for MY ability to cook, communicate and travel.
    Yeah… I want THAT world.
    SO much better than the warmth of my woodstove (primary heat) that I heat water and cook on; my feet which pumps my heart and feeds my brain full of oxygen; and my censored words and opinions going out over the airwaves…
    LOVE this utterly dependent Daddy state our jailers have planned for us…that we PAY for the privilege of.
    Nothing like a captured population.
    Welcome the Vermont Gulag of no choices anymore of what ‘quality of life’ means to YOU (not Daddy whose poor taste stinks to high heaven and has destroyed ANY quality of life for Vermonters in 20 months).
    Fed up with ‘know betters’ and ‘Daddy complexes’ and ‘caretaking’ that comes in the form of tyrannical surveillance and police states.
    Fed up I tell you.
    Vermont wasn’t broken and didn’t need to be fixed.
    NOW…its destroyed everything of value…including our independence and self-reliance.
    This is pure devilry in action, this climate b.s.
    Qui bono?

    • Allison,

      The grid goes down?
      That is nothing compared to THIS

      Germany and the UK have a lot of wind turbines.

      There has been one upmanship for at least 20 years.

      WW2 is not yet over.

      However, there has been almost no wind for WEEKS in Germany, and the UK, and Ireland, and the Netherlands, and Denmark. Yikes.

      Luckily, there is RUSSIAN gas, but there is not enough of it, even though Russia is pumping slightly in excess of CONTRACT obligations.

      Russia says, before we can pump more gas, we need a signed gas sale contract, then we have to produce the additional gas, then we have to transmit it.

      The EU is still obstructing NordStream 2, allowing only 50% of its capacity to be used, just in case others want to use the pipe.

      However, there are no others WITH GAS. The EU idiocy of that is far beyond rational.

      Here is a nugget to tickle your brain




    THETFORD; July 2, 2021 — A fire destroyed a 2019 Chevy Bolt, 66 kWh battery, EPA range 238 miles, owned by state Rep. Tim Briglin, D-Thetford, Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Technology.

    He had been driving back and forth from Thetford, VT, to Montpelier, VT, with his EV, about 100 miles via I-89
    He had parked his 2019 Chevy Bolt on the driveway, throughout the winter, per GM recall of Chevy Bolts
    He had plugged his EV into a 240-volt charger.
    The battery was at about 10% charge at start of charging, at 8 PM, and he had charged it to 100% charge at 4 AM; 8 hours of charging during the year. See Note

    Charging at 32F or less
    Li-ions would plate out on the anode each time when charging, especially when such charging occurred at battery temperatures of 32F or less.

    Here is an excellent explanation regarding charging at 32F or less.

    Fire in Driveway: Firefighters were called to Briglin’s house on Tucker Hill Road, around 9 AM Thursday.
    Investigators from the Vermont Department of Public Safety Fire and Explosion Investigation Unit determined:

    1) The fire started in a compartment in the back of the passenger’s side of the vehicle
    2) It was likely due to an “electrical failure”.

    GM Recall of Chevy Bolts: In 2020, GM issued a worldwide recall of 68,667 Chevy Bolts, all 2017, 2018 and 2019 models, plus, in 2021, a recall for another 73,000 Bolts, all 2020, 2021, and 2022 models.
    GM set aside $1.8 BILLION to replace battery modules, or 1.8 BILLION/(68,667 + 73,000) = $12,706/EV.

    Owners were advised not to charge them in a garage, and not to leave them unattended while charging, which may take up to 8 hours; what a nuisance!
    I wonder what could happen during rush hour traffic, or in a parking garage, or at a shopping mall, etc.
    Rep. Briglin heeded the GM recall by not charging in his garage. See URLs

    – Cost of replacing the battery packs of 80,000 Hyundai Konas was estimated at $900 million, about $11,000 per vehicle
    – EV batteries should be charged from 20 to 80%, to achieve minimal degradation and long life, plus the charging loss is minimal in that range
    – Charging EVs from 0 to 20% charge, and from 80 to 100% charge:

    1) Uses more kWh AC from the wall outlet per kWh DC charged into the battery, and
    2) Is detrimental to the battery.
    3) Requires additional kWh for cooling the battery while charging.

    – EV batteries must never be charged, when the battery temperature is less than 32F; if charged anyway, the plating out of Li-ions on the anode would permanently damage the battery.

    See section Charging Electric Vehicles During Freezing Conditions in URL



    Government Electric Vehicle and Heat Pump Mandates

    Subsidies do not just disappear. They would be charged to others, and/or would be added to government debts.

    Celebrating energy cost savings, and ignoring amortizing costs, and having minimal CO2 reduction is like living a fantasy. See Part Five regarding CO2

    Governments mandating hundreds of $billions be spent on such poor investments, as part of climate-change fighting,
    “meeting Paris”, etc., would impoverish the US people, and make the US less competitive on world markets.

    The CO2 reduction would have minimal impact on climate change, because the US emits less than 15% of the world’s human-caused CO2. See URLs.

    Additional Wind/Solar/Hydro Generating Plants, Grid Upgrades, Peak-Smoothing, Load-Shifting, Storage

    Vermont’s maximum grid load is about 1,100 MW, and peak demand of users is about 900 MW, without significant quantities of HPs and EVs.

    Major distribution and high-voltage grid upgrades, peak-smoothing and load-shifting and electricity storage systems, using battery systems and demand management, would be required, if, in the future:

    – Vermont’s 200,000-plus EVs would plug in, demanding up to 200,000 x 10 kW (Level 2); see table 2 = 2,000 MW, most of them recharging for 2 – 4 hours, some of them up to 10 hours, for next day driving.

    NOTE: Vermont total registered gas/diesel vehicles was 547,000 in 2019

    – Each free-standing, 2000 sq ft, well-sealed/well-insulated house, would require 2 HPs. Vermont’s 200,000-plus HPs, would be operating, demanding up to 200,000 x 2.8 kW/HP x 2 HP/house = 1,120 MW, for many hours on cold days, to heat buildings, at the same time EVs would be charging. See URL



    This article describes the efficiency of electric vehicles, EVs, and their charging loss, when charging at home and on-the-road, and the economics, when compared with efficient gasoline vehicles.

    In this article,

    Total cost of an EV, c/mile = Operating cost, c/mile + Owning cost, c/mile, i.e., amortizing the difference of the MSRPs of an EV versus an equivalent, efficient gasoline vehicle; no options, no destination charge, no sales tax, no subsidies.

    CO2 reduction of equivalent vehicles, on a lifetime, A-to-Z basis = CO2 emissions of an efficient gasoline vehicle, say 30 to 40 mpg – CO2 emissions of an EV


    Real-World Concerns About the Economics of EVs

    It may not be such a good idea to have a proliferation of EVs, because of:

    1) Their high initial capital costs; about 50% greater than equivalent gasoline vehicles.
    2) The widespread high-speed charging facilities required for charging “on the road”.
    3) The loss of valuable time when charging “on the road”.
    4) The high cost of charging/kWh, plus exorbitant penalties, when charging “on-the-road”.

    High-Mileage Hybrids a Much Better Alternative Than EVs

    The Toyota Prius, and Toyota Prius plug-in, which get up to 54 mpg, EPA combined, would:

    1) Have much less annual owning and operating costs than any EV, for at least the next ten years.
    2) Have minimal wait-times, as almost all such plug-ins would be charging at home
    3) Be less damaging to the environment, because their batteries would have very low capacity, kWh
    4) Impose much less of an additional burden on the electric grids.

    Hybrid vehicles, such as the Toyota Prius, save about the same amount of CO₂ as electric cars over their lifetime, plus:

    1) They are cost-competitive with gasoline vehicles, even without subsidies.
    2) They do not require EV chargers, do not induce range anxiety, can be refilled in minutes, instead of hours.
    3) Climate change does not care about where CO₂ comes from. Gasoline cars are only about 7% of global CO2 emissions. Replacing them with electric cars would only help just a little, on an A to Z, lifetime basis.

    “Electrify Everything”; an easily uttered slogan

    It would require:

    – Additional power plants, such as nuclear, wind, solar, hydro, bio
    – Additional grid augmentation/expansion to connect wind and solar systems, and to carry the loads for EVs and heat pumps
    – Additional battery systems to store midday solar output surges for later use, i.e., DUCK-curve management.
    – Additional command/control-orchestrating (turning off/on appliances, heat pumps, EVs, etc.) by utilities to avoid overloading distribution and high voltage electric grids regarding:

    1) Charging times of EVs and operating times of heat pumps
    2) Operating times of major appliances
    3) Demands of commercial/industrial businesses




    A 2021 Subaru Outback, medium SUV, has 32.5 cu. ft. of cargo space behind the rear seats and 75.7 cubic feet with the rear seats folded down, standard AWD, range about 540 miles in summer, costs about $27,000; no options, no destination charge, no sales tax, no subsidies.

    A 2021 Hyundai Kona, compact SUV, has 31 cu. ft. of cargo space behind its rear seats and 61.9 cubic feet with these seats folded, AWD not available (unsuitable for rural New England), range about 258 miles EPA combined, cost about $37,390; no options, no destination charge, no sales tax, no subsidies.

    A 2021 Model Y, compact SUV, has 68 cu. ft of cargo space, split between a front trunk and a large rear cargo area, standard AWD, range about 326 miles, cost about $49,990; no options, no destination charge, no sales tax, no subsidies.

    Amortizing the MSRP difference of 37,390, Kona – 27,000, Outback = $10,390 at 3.5% for 10 years would be $1,233/y, or 12.3 c/mile, if 10,560 mile/y

    Amortizing the MSRP difference of 49,990, Model Y – 27,000, Outback = $21,990 at 3.5% for 10 years would be $2,610/y, or 26.1 c/mile, if 10,560 mile/y

    The cost of amortizing the MSRP difference of gasoline vehicles vs equivalent EVs should be added to the cost of operating EVs. See Notes and table 5

    NOTE: On-the-road data from privately owned EVs was analyzed: 158,468,000 miles from 21,600 EVs
    EV travel ranges from 9,548 to 9.697 miles/y. This article uses 10,560 miles/y. See table 7
    See page 17 of URL

    NOTE: Annual travel of gasoline vehicles:

    1) Light duty truck/van, 11,991miles/y
    2) LDV, 11,507/y
    3) Car, 11,370/y
    See image in URL

  11. Off hand I suspect that if you can’t sell a home without spending thousands that you don’t have, that some fire departments will be busy in the future.

    • I said that because a couple of years ago I smelled smoke. It turned out to be a misfire in the boiler, but before I discovered the source, my first thoughts were get the cats out, along with few irreplaceable things I have, only then consider calling for help or letting a neighbor do it. Considering where this state is going, its reinforced the thought.

  12. Climate change problem was started by Al Gore.
    Many scientists disagree with what we are being told.
    Look at history. It’s just about more control coming from
    this Marxist Democratic government.

  13. Rob, I can’t wait to hear the responses to your questions & concerns from the Vermont
    Climate Council.

    I won’t hold my breath waiting, as all you will get is a canned answer as that’s all they have
    no facts…… just rhetoric

    I keep my vehicles for ten (10) years and my last purchase was in 2019, so I guess I’ll miss
    the boondoggle 2025 deadline

  14. This is unbelievable. Al Rob’s questions are well thought-out unlike the disastrous plan that is being put forward. What are these people thinking? Oh, that’s right, they aren’t.

  15. Vermont will need to build two nuclear power plants starting 5 years ago to meet the electrical demands of this plan.

  16. Rob……..Your questions should be sent directly to the Chair of the Climate Council Susanne Young for answers. She and members of the Council should be readily able to provide answers to the very fundamental questions you have raised………Answers that are owed to the people of Vermont.

    When Ms. Young provides you the answers, perhaps you can share them with all Vermonters via TNR…….

    • Peter,

      Young people were purposely put on the GWSA Committee “to hear their views”.

      Is there anyone on the Committee, who could answer any of Bob Roper’s questions?

      In the private sector, before you propose anything to an investment committee, you must have a detailed plan, with timeline, with TURNKEY CAPITAL COST, and you with the FINANCIAL BENEFITS of your proposal. Trying to BS the Committee would not work.

      Having spent 40 years in the energy sector, in various roles, to appear before my company’s investment committee without all that preparation, would be a job-losing idiocy.

      The Committee would just send me packing, as they would not tolerate such naiveness on the staff.

      My advise to Committee members: If you cannot give proper answers to the people, you should quit the Committee. You do not HAVE to be there

      • Willem:

        Your repeatedly stated analysese cannot be ignored by those on the Climate Council.

        We have all been following the Global Warming Solution Act/Climate Council process from the very beginning and one thing stands out…….The entire process has been run in both the Legislature and on the Climate Council by individuals who are not qualified for the task at hand. They may be well intentioned people, but they are not qualified for what they are doing.

        We have unqualified individuals in the Legislature and on the Climate Council making complicated technical decisions based on testimony from entities that have a financial interest in advancing climate change actions. The renewable energy industry, which stands to make untold millions of dollars or more by transitioning away from fossil fuels along with their lobbyist and the climate activists who are financially supported by this same renewable energy are driving this entire process.

        In no other situation could a flawed process such as this be allowed to happen…….Billions of Vermonters’ dollars transferred to industry entities that made the initial recommendations to proceed with the climate mitigation plan in the first place.

        Public policy driven by ideology never works……Maybe the Governor can step in and make a case to Vermont that spending billions of dollars on an exercise that will do nothing to mitigate climate change is a giant mistake.

        • The Dem/Progs would quickly eliminate that Governor using universal mail-in, and universal ballot harvesting, and midnight drop box ballot stuffing, the three wonderful new tools for committing massive fraud, as documented by the forensic audit in Arizona.

          Arizona was very lucky, it had a Republican-controlled state Senate, that decided to have the audit.

          Vermonters are screwed.
          They do not have a Republican-controlled Senate

Comments are closed.