The Vermont Climate Council adopts the Vermont Climate Action Plan

For Immediate Release
December 1, 2021

Media Contact:
Elle O’Casey, Director of Communications
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, 802-760-9967
Issued on behalf of the Vermont Climate Council

MONTPELIER, Vt. — The Vermont Climate Council adopted the initial Vermont Climate Action Plan today. The plan will help Vermont meet the emissions reductions requirements outlined in the Global Warming Solutions Act and prepare for the impacts of climate change.

“A talented, passionate, and highly motivated group of Vermonters came together late last year to form Vermont’s Climate Council and draft this initial Climate Action Plan,” said Julie Moore, Secretary of Vermont Agency of Natural Resources. “The recommendations put forward in the Vermont Climate Action Plan reflect the collective work of the Vermont Climate Council, its five subcommittees, and ideas and feedback from the public.”

The Global Warming Solutions Act, adopted by the General Assembly in September 2020, created the Vermont Climate Council, and required the Council to adopt a Climate Action Plan by December 1, 2021. This initial Climate Action Plan includes 26 pathways for action, including a dramatic increase in efforts to weatherize Vermont homes and spur the adoption of electric vehicles, recommendations for investments to help Vermont homeowners and businesses relocate from harms’ way in the face of a changing climate, and steps to ensure the resilience and viability of Vermont’s farms, forests and natural lands, among others. These pathways outline work needed to accomplish the greenhouse gas emission reduction requirements established in the Global Warming Solutions Act. In addition, the plan lays out 64 strategies and more than 230 specific steps that spell out the framework needed to realize the transformative change required by the Global Warming Solutions Act.

This initial comprehensive, four-year plan includes recommendations to:

  • Expand weatherization and clean, energy-efficient heating options, such as improved insulation and heat pumps for Vermonters.
  • Shift away from fossil fuels and fossil fuel-dependent equipment.
  • Build more charging stations for electric vehicles.
  • Provide incentives to help Vermonters purchase electric vehicles.
  • Incentivize village and downtown development in a way that preserves more open space, such as town forests, and uses land more efficiently.
  • Create infrastructure that supports more walking, biking, public transit options and electric vehicle use in Vermont communities.
  • Invest in agricultural and working lands management practices that cut emissions.
  • Prioritize planning practices and investments that help Vermont communities prepare for climate impacts.
  • Launch comprehensive climate education programs for schools and sectors.

The impact, cost, feasibility, equity, and benefits were assessed to shape the priorities in the plan. “Priorities in the Vermont Climate Action Plan have been assessed based on ‘Just Transition’ Principles that were developed by a diverse range of Vermonters engaged in the Council’s work. While there is much more work to be done to equitably engage Vermonters in shaping climate action moving forward, applying these principles will ensure those most affected by climate change and an energy transition are being considered,” said Councilor Sue Minter and Co-Chair of the Just Transitions Subcommittee.

This is an initial plan, and the Council will continue its work by identifying funding opportunities, engaging the public in the recommendations within the plan, and measuring and assessing progress, in addition to other activities. The Vermont Legislature, Agency of Natural Resources and other entities outlined in the plan, will now consider the recommendations and act to implement change in Vermont.

Read a short summary or the full version of the plan and learn more at

Image courtesy of state of Vermont

16 thoughts on “The Vermont Climate Council adopts the Vermont Climate Action Plan

  1. The problem here is that left out of the Plan were the costs. Without the costs and how they will be paid this does not past muster. It is impractical as stand alone single payer in Vermont and as unsustainable as our pension system.

    • No costs cited. Or very little of anything else to justify such a substantial and overwhelming investment.

      The Climate Action Plan is a business proposal to induce the people of Vermont to make a multi-billion dollar investment……A parallel in the business world would be a large public stock offering. A document required to be based on hard numbers and subject to strict Securities Exchange Commission oversight, analysis and approval before being allowed to go forward.

      It’s doubtful that the SEC would approve anything as hollow as the Climate Action Plan to be sold to the public……..Let’s see what the legislature does with this 265 page overweight and under performing submittal that will impact Vermonters lives and pocketbooks for generations with little chance of a return on investment.

    • EAN’s 2015 annual report estimated the turnkey capital cost at $1 PLUS BILLION PER YEAR for each year to 2050, or $1.3 PLUS BILLION FROM 2022 to 2050

      That excludes financing and replacements of short life equipment and systems

      This SHAKEDOWN scheme, duping hard-working Vermonters, is just one huge subsidy for RE companies that have been jumping up and down shouting gimme, gimme, gimme, because WE ARE SAVING THE WORLD.


      All the RE folks know it, but they keep on scare-mongering.

      Make sure to go to the polls EN MASSE, in 2022, so your votes will overwhelm any frauds by Dem/ Prog operatives

      Volunteer to be observers. Make videos for evidence

  2. Deep freeze in Arctic Europe sends power prices soaring
    By Paul Homewood
    It’s so cold, even Norwegians refuse to ski
    On the Finnmark plateau, between Kautokeino and Karasjok, temperatures dropped down to -35°C on Sunday. The forecast for the coming week shows a temperature anomaly for the last days of November of 10°C below the reference period 1961-1990, the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute informs.

    Coldest out is Nikkaluokta near Gällivare in Norrbotten with -36°C.

    In times of climate change, the current freeze comes in sharp contrast to last fall, when meteorologists reported about the hottest October and early November ever measured, with an average of 6,7°C above normal across the Arctic.

    Cold weather even sweeps the coast of northernmost Norway where the Arctic waters are kept ice-free by the warm Gulf Stream. In Kirkenes, on the border to Russia, the thermometer read -25°C on Saturday outside the Barents Observer’s office.

    On the Kola Peninsula, Sunday November 28 came with temperatures from -18°C to -30°C the news online Severpost reported.

    Further east in the Russian Arctic, quickly accumulating sea-ice on the Northern Sea Route has created a critical situation as a number of ships have been trapped in thick sea-ice for several weeks.

    At the ski resort Ruka near Kuusamo in northern Finland, this weekend’s opening of FIS Cross-Country World Championship is deeply troubled by the frost. With temperatures below -20°C, the start of the competitions was in jeopardy. Norway’s team withdraw from the race, arguing it was too cold to ski.

    Extreme freeze over northern Scandinavia causes energy prices to soar to a record high. The main reason is high consumption combined with ice formation on rivers with hydropower plants in northern Sweden. The northern regions of Norway and Sweden are closely linked together in the same electricity grid.

    Low production in Sweden pushes prices up, also in northernmost Noway. On Sunday, a kWh came with a price-tag of 1,92 kroner/kWh (€0,19/kWh) on the spot market, the highest cost for electricity inside the Arctic Circle since 2010. Current prices are up to 10 times higher compared to the average daily over the three first weeks of November.

    And it’s not just the Barents Sea, the situation is now getting critical at the other end of Siberia:

    The quickly accumulating sea-ice on the Northern Sea Route is creating a potentially critical situation along Russia’s east Arctic coast. For several weeks, a number of ships have been trapped in thick sea-ice.

    Several ships have also been waiting to sail into the area. For many days, the Tiksi, Yamal Ibris, I. Trubin, Polar King and Arshenevsky were located in the Kara Sea awaiting icebreaker assistance to their destinations. On board the ships was thousands of tons of equipment needed by local authorities and companies in the Chukotka region.

    However, none of the ships will reach their destinations. In mid-November, they all turned back westwards and are now about to make it to Arkhangelsk where the cargo will be unloaded.

    According to regional authorities in Chukotka a replacement will come in early January when nuclear-powered container ship Sevmorput will bring the cargo to destination.


  3. See section Charging Electric Vehicles During Freezing Conditions in URL

    Charging Electric Vehicles During Freezing Conditions

    A 3-layer tape (cathode, separator and anode) is wound on a core to make a battery cell.
    An EV battery pack has several thousand cells. The cells are arranged in strings, i.e., in series, to achieve the desired voltage
    The strings are arranged in parallel to achieve the desired amps.
    Power, in Watts = Volts x Amps

    EV Normal Operation at 32F and below: On cold/freezing days, EVs would use on-board systems to heat the battery, as needed, during daily operation

    EV Parking at 32 F and below: When at home, it is best to keep EVs plugged in during periods at 32F and below, whether parked indoors or outdoors.
    When parking at an airport, which may not have enough charging stations, it is best to fully charge EVs prior to parking, to enable the on-board systems to heat the battery during parking, as needed.

    Charging at 32F and below: Li-ion batteries must never be charged when the battery temperature is at 32F or below. Do not plug it in. Turn on “pre-conditioning”, to enable the battery heating/cooling system (which could be a heat pump) to very slowly heat up the battery to about 40F. After the battery is “up to temperature”, normal charging can be started, either at home, or at a fast-charging rate on the road.

    If the battery does not have enough charge to heat itself at about 40F, it needs to be heated by an external heat source, such as an electric heater under the battery, or towed/driven to a warm garage. All this, while cumbersome, needs to be done to safeguard the expensive battery.

    Pre-conditioning can be set to:

    1) Preheat the cabin and/or seats
    2) Defrost windshield wipers, windows, door handles and charge port, etc., in case of freezing rain conditions; newer Teslas have charge port heaters. See URL
    3) Pre-heat the battery, before arriving at a fast charger.

    Power Outage, while parked at 32F and below: During a power outage, partially charged batteries, connected to dead chargers, could use much of their remaining charge to keep the batteries at about 40F.
    If the power is restored, and the EV is plugged in, charging must never begin, unless the battery temperature is 35 to 40F
    See URLs.

    During charging, Li-ions (pos.) are absorbed by the anode (pos.) at decreasing rates as the battery temperature decreases from 32F
    Any excess Li-ions arriving at the anode will plate out on the anode and permanently reduce the absorption rate.

    The plating is not smooth, like chrome plating; it is roughish and may have dendrites, which could penetrate the thin separator between the anode and cathode, and cause a short and a fire.

    A similar condition exists, if charging from 0 to 20% and from 80 to 100%; the more often such charging, the greater the anode resistance to absorbing Li-ions, and the greater the likelihood of plating.

    The plating condition is permanent, i.e., cannot be reversed.

    Also, frequently charging from 0 to 20% and from 80 to 100%, increases the charging percentage, increases kWh/mile of travel, and reduces range.

    – EV batteries have miscellaneous losses to provide electricity to on-board systems
    – On cold/freezing days, an electric bus should be ready for service as soon as the driver enters the bus
    – On cold/freezing days, the bus driver would need at least 70% charge, because travel would require more kWh per mile

    If the battery temperature is less than 40F or more than 115F, it will use more kWh/mile of travel
    The best efficiency, charging and discharging, is at battery temperatures of 60 to 80F.
    Batteries have greater internal resistance at lower temperatures and at high temperatures.
    Pro-bus folks often point to California regarding electric buses, but in New England, using electric buses to transport children would be a whole new ballgame, especially on colder days. See URLs

    EV Electricity Supply: Where would the electricity come from, to charge and protect from cold, expensive batteries during extended electricity outages/rolling blackouts, due to multi-day, hot and cold weather events, with minimal wind and solar, as occur in New England throughout the year?
    Would charging electricity be supplied by emergency standby diesel-generators, or emergency standby batteries?


    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

    Comments on Table

    Summary table 1 shows the CO2 emissions for four vehicles, lifetime, A-to-Z basis.
    The table shows higher-mileage gasoline and hybrid vehicles have CO2 emissions comparable with equivalent EVs.
    It was assumed 20% of charging would be on the road and 80% at home.
    The Model Y kWh/mile values were prorated from real-world Model 3 values.


    China has made electric buses and EVs a priority in urban areas to reduce excessive air pollution, due to: 1) coal-fired power plants, and 2) increased vehicle traffic.

    The US has much less of a pollution problem than China, except in its larger urban areas.
    The US uses much less coal, more domestic natural gas, and CO2-free nuclear is still around.

    New England has a pollution problem in its southern urban areas.
    Vermont has a minor pollution problem in Burlington and a few other urban areas.

    RE folks want to “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 centralized, 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, and major appliances
    2) Demands of commercial/industrial businesses

    RE Folks Want More EVs and Buses Bought With “Free” Money

    RE folks drive the energy priorities of New England governments. RE folks want to use about $40 million of “free” federal COVID money and Volkswagen Settlement money to buy electric transit and school buses to deal with a minor pollution problem in a few urban areas in Vermont. RE folks urge Vermonters to buy:

    Mass Transit Buses
    Electric: $750,000 – $1,000,000 each, plus infrastructures, such as indoor parking, high-speed charging systems.
    Standard Diesel: $380,000 – $420,000; indoor parking and charging systems not required.

    School Buses
    Electric: $330,000 – $375,000, plus infrastructures
    Standard Diesel: about $100,000

    This article shows the 2 Proterra transit buses in Burlington, VT, would reduce CO2 at very high cost per metric ton, and the minor annual operating cost reduction would be overwhelmed by the cost of amortizing $million buses that last about 12 to 15 years.

    The $40 million of “free” money would be far better used to build zero-energy, and energy-surplus houses for suffering households; such housing would last at least 50 to 75 years.

    NOTE: Spending huge amounts of borrowed capital on various projects that 1) have very poor financials, and 2) yield minor reductions in CO2 at high cost, is a recipe for 1) low economic efficiency, and 2) low economic growth, on a state-wide and nation-wide scale, which would 1) adversely affect Vermont and US competitiveness in markets, and 2) adversely affect living standards and 3) inhibit unsubsidized/efficient/profitable job creation.

    Real Costs of Government RE Programs Likely Will Remain Hidden

    Vermont’s government engaging in electric bus demonstration programs, financed with “free” money, likely will prove to be expensive undertakings, requiring hidden subsidies, white-washing and obfuscation.

    Lifetime spreadsheets, with 1) turnkey capital costs, 2) annual cashflows, 3) annual energy cost savings, 4) annual CO2 reductions, and 5) cost of CO2 reduction/metric ton, with all assumptions clearly stated and explained, likely will never see the light of day.

    Including Amortizing Capital Cost for a Rational Approach to Projects

    RE folks do not want to include amortizing costs, because it makes the financial economics of their dubious RE projects appear dismal. This is certainly the case with expensive electric buses. If any private-enterprise business were to ignore amortizing costs, it would be out of business in a short time.

    Capital cost of electric school bus, plus charger, $327,500 + $25,000 = $352,500
    Battery system cost, $100,000, for a 100-mile range.
    Capital cost of diesel school bus, $100,000
    Additional capital cost “to go electric” 352500 – 100000 = $252,500


    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.

    Other Annual Costs

    There likely would be service calls and parts for the HP system, as the years go by.
    This is in addition to the annual service calls and parts for my existing propane system. I am losing more money.

    Energy Savings of Propane versus HPs

    Site Energy Basis: RE folks claim there would be a major energy reduction, due to using HPs. They compare the thermal Btus of 300 gallon of propane x 84250 Btu/gal = 25,275,000 Btu vs the electrical Btus of 2489 kWh of electricity x 3412 Btu/kWh = 8,492,469 Btu.

    However, that comparison would equate thermal Btus with electrical Btus, which all engineers know is an absolute no-no.

    A-to-Z Energy Basis: A proper comparison would be thermal Btus in propane vs thermal Btus to power plants, i.e., 25,275,000 Btu vs 23,312,490 Btu, i.e., a minor energy reduction. See table 1A


    THETFORD; July 2, 2021 — A fire destroyed a 2019 Chevy Bolt, 66 kWh battery, battery pack cost about $10,000, or 10000/66 = $152/kWh, 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.
    His 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.
    Charging over such a wide range is detrimental for the battery. However, it is required for “range-driving”, i.e., making long trips. See Note

    NOTE: Range-driving is not recommended, except on rare occasions, as it would 1) pre-maturely age/damage the battery, 2) reduce range sooner, 3) increase charging loss, and 4) increase kWh/mile.

    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.

    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”. See Note

    NOTE: Actually, it likely was one or more battery cells shorting out, which creates heat, which burns nearby items, which creates a fire that is very hard to extinguish. See Appendix

    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.


    The Vermont House overrode Governor Scott’s veto of GWSA, and sent it to the Vermont Senate for an override vote
    GSWA converts the aspirational goals of the CEP, into mandated goals, with penalties, taxes, fees and surcharges.
    GWSA had been called “must pass this Session”.

    Capital Costs to Implement the Vermont Comprehensive Energy Plan

    In 2015, Energy Action Network, EAN, an umbrella organization for RE businesses, etc., had estimated it would take at least $1.25 BILLION per year for 35 years to implement the CEP by 2050, not counting many $billions for 1) financing costs and 2) replacement costs of short-live systems (wind, solar, batteries, EVs, heat pumps) during these 35 years.

    GWSA to Subsidize Job Creation in RE Sectors

    Vermont has a very poor climate for traditional, private-enterprise job creation. Forbes, et al., rate Vermont near the bottom. There are too many onerous taxes, fees and surcharges, and rules and regulations, that have caused businesses to 1) not grow in Vermont, 2) leave Vermont, and 3) not even come to Vermont.

    Vermont’s population is stagnant. Ambitious, younger people leave, older, more-needy people stay.
    Well-paying, steady jobs, with decent benefits, are hard to come by in Vermont, except in government and education.

    GWSA would create an expensively subsidized, industrial development policy that would:

    1) Require major increases in the current levels of various subsidies to all sorts of RE businesses for decades.
    2) Produce expensive, mostly weather-dependent, unreliable, variable/intermittent, wind/solar electricity.
    3) Very expensively “create jobs” that would not exist without the subsidies, the expense of other Vermonters.

    The GWSA “industrial development policy” would be an expensive substitute for traditional, private-enterprise job creation, which has proven so difficult in Vermont, largely because of historic, socialistic mindsets within the Legislature, which prefer to protect/enlarge/perpetuate vote-getting pet projects, instead of creating the proper conditions for a vibrant private sector that produces hi-tech products, employs highly-skilled, tax-paying workers, in steady jobs, with good benefits.

    GSWA Requires Major Annual Spending Increases

    Annual spending on RE would have to increase from the current $210 million/y (includes $60+ million for Efficiency Vermont) to at least $1.25 billion per year, to implement the CEP.

    If the RE subsidies were “freebie” federal subsidies, they would subsidize and grow RE businesses, and create jobs.
    However, federal subsidies increase and decrease, and come and go.

    If the subsidies were “state” subsidies, such as for 1) heat pumps, 2) electric vehicles, and 3) above-market, feed-in rates for solar, such as net-metering at 21.7 c/kWh and Standard Offer at 21.7 c/kWh, they would be extracted from Vermont ratepayers, taxpayers and tourists, which, as has been proven, would create jobs in the RE sectors, but would, as has been proven, eliminate jobs, or prevent jobs from being created, in almost all private-enterprise sectors.

    That would further worsen the near-zero, real-growth Vermont economy, and prolong the adverse employment conditions of the “Virus economy”.

    Brief Summary of GWSA

    The Agency of Natural Resources, ANR, led by Peter Walke (who is a member of EAN), has to create the rules and regulations, and penalties for non-compliance, which would be subject for review by a “SUPREME COUNCIL”, i.e., mostly appointed RE profiteers with ties to RE companies.

    GWSA states, if the ANR measures would not sufficiently reduce Vermont’s carbon dioxide, CO2, as scheduled per CEP, any entity, such as the Conservation Law Foundation, would be allowed to sue the state government, with lawyer’s fees reimbursed, if the suit is upheld in Court.

    GWSA states, the legislature and any Governor’s administration would play no role other than the legislature voting to provide the money, extracted from more and more impoverished, already-struggling, Virus-unemployed Vermonters, to implement it all.

    I foresee:

    1) A growing bureaucracy embroiled in one litigious brouhaha after another
    2) Vermonters becoming more and more oppressed and impoverished in the pursuit of impossible climate goals
    3) Vermont becoming less and less attractive as a place to do business, to visit, and to live.
    4) GWSA inflicting decades of torture of Vermonters to achieve nothing regarding the climate, other than “feel-good/virtue-signaling”.


    Vermont has a Comprehensive Energy Plan, CEP. The capital cost for implementing the CEP would be in excess of $1.0 billion/y from 2017 to 2050, 33 years, as stated in Energy Action Network annual report for 2015.

    It would take $1.25 billion/y from 2022 to 2050, 28 years, and probable much more to overcome the Biden 5 to 6 percent inflation. See URLs.

    Excluded are financing and replacements of short-life systems, such as EVs (10y), heat pumps (15y), battery systems (15y), etc.

    Vermont Gross Emissions

    9.04 MMt in 2012
    10.19 MMt in 2015
    9.76 MMt in 2016
    9.41 MMt in 2017, estimated
    9.02 MMt in 2018, estimated

    The decrease from 2015 is almost entirely due to the VT-DPS using an artificial/political basis, i.e., not a physical basis, for calculating the CO2 of the Vermont electrical sector. That basis is MARKET BASED, i.e., based on “paper” power purchase agreements, PPAs, utilities have with owners of in-state and out-of-state electricity generating plants. It is explained in detail in this article.

    US Gross Emissions were about 6,700 MMt in 2018
    Vermont emissions are just a tiny fraction of US emissions.


    GWSA essentially is a big stick, wielded in a threatening manner, by Vermont’s RE interests, to hit Vermonters over the head to cough up lots of money out of their empty pockets, to implement the CEP, including highly subsidized wind and solar systems that produce expensive, weather-dependent, seasonal electricity, that would do nothing regarding climate change.

    CEP Financial Implications

    Very few legislators have any idea how much it will cost to MANDATE the implementation of the VT Comprehensive Energy Plan.

    The below CO2 emissions reductions for Phases 1, 2, and 3 are based on the VT-CEP goals, as mandated by GWSA.

    Phase 1

    The CEP mandate:

    Reduce CO2 from 10.22 MMt, at end 2005 to 7.46 MMt, by Jan. 1, 2025, or 2.76 MMt, to “meet Paris”.

    The Council would take about a year to develop plans, which means most of 2021 would have elapsed before any action.

    EAN Plan:

    Reduce CO2 from 9.76 MMt, at end 2016, to 7.46 MMt, by Jan. 1, 2025, or 2.30 MMt, to “meet Paris”

    This article:

    Reduce CO2 from 9.02 MMt, at end 2018 (latest numbers) to 7.46 MMt, by Jan 1, 2025, or 1.56 MMt, to “meet Paris”

    This would take place during the years 2022, 2023, and 2024, effectively a 3-y period.

    The turnkey capital cost would be about 1.56/2.30 x 13.70 = $9.29 billion, or $3.10 BILLION/y. See table 1A

    Currently, Vermonters, and the VT and federal governments, spend about $200 MILLION/y, on heat pumps, electric vehicles, insulation/sealing, solar systems, wind turbine systems, grid extension/augmentation, battery systems, etc.

    Reducing such a large quantity of CO2, requires ramping up electricity generating capacity, MW, and implementing energy reduction measures, during 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024.

    Vermont would not be able to spend $3.10 BILLION/y for 3 years, i.e., the required resources far exceed what is available to Vermont.

    Mandating such build-outs, because of GWSA, would be far beyond rational.

    Any rational engineer at the VT-DPS would agree in private, but likely would not publicly, because he would be ostracized, or out of a job.

  10. I’m sure that installing more weather stripping in Vermont homes will offset the pollution billowing forth from China!

  11. How many members of the Climate Council does it take to screw in a light bulb? The Folly of Fools Council worked so diligently they came up with the same reguritated template the State continues to push – another wash, rinse, repeat excercise. Is it any wonder why this State cannot get out of it’s own way, get anything accomplished, or get any forward momentum? For the thousands upon thousands of tax dollars flowing into Montpelier daily, we get woke bureacratic nonsense that makes them feel so important and the State becomes more and more insolvent. All of this from the Dem/Prog leadership that can’t lead it’s way out of a paper bag. We are doomed.

  12. Peter,

    GWSA RE folks are taking their cue from Glasgow COP26, which decided to do NOTHING regarding coal burning, except unabated open burning in India.

    1) We are talking about the world continuing to use EIGHT BILLION METRIC TON OF COAL EACH YEAR. No timetable was mentioned regarding phasing it down.

    2) About 500 million cook with coal over open fires, which creates much local pollution. India promised to “phase it down”, but no timetable was mentioned.

    3) In northern latitudes icing up has begun 2 weeks earlier than in the past 7 years. The EU has gas storage about 15% less than normal.

    4) Russia has been providing slightly more gas than required by signed long-term contracts. Russia sells the excess on the spot market, which has very high prices.

    5) EU career bureaucrats told member countries not to sign additional long-term with contract with Russia, because it would send the “wrong signal” regarding the EU global warming stance.

    6) Tens of millions of EU people freezing their butts off, in the dark, with frozen pipes appears likely in the near future.

    7) The level of EU RE nuttiness is off-the-charts

  13. The lofty goal stated in its very title, The Global Warming Solutions Act, is unceremoniously abandoned in the very first paragraph of the press release announcing the adoption the Vermont Climate Action Plan…….Not a very reassuring start and definitely not a “solution”.

    In the first paragraph of the press release, Vermont and the rest of the world is told “The plan will help Vermont meet the emissions reductions requirements…..”Now that doesn’t sound very much like a global warming solution. A solution that we have been repeated told by climate activists is needed immediately, no time to waste, its an existential threat if we don’t act NOW!

    So the best that Vermont Climate Council’s plan can do is produce a weak kneed announcement of “The plan will help…..” and no more. Elsewhere, the northeast governors abandon the TCI, China, India, Japan and other counties continue building coal fired power plants and Joe Biden has gone wobbly on restricting oil availability.

    Where’s the sense of urgency that we have been told is absolutely needed to avoid extinction of mankind?

Comments are closed.