By Rob Roper
After roughly half a year of foot dragging, the full Vermont Climate Council took up and voted on the controversial recommendations of the Biomass Task Group it set up to resolve the question of how burning wood to generate electricity should be handled within the Climate Action Plan.
After months of study and interviewing dozens of expert witnesses, the task group drafted three pages of policy recommendations for the full council to consider.
The three main points in those recommendation were:
- New electric-led generation biomass facilities in the state of Vermont should not be used.
- The Ryegate and McNeil facilities should not be expanded to increase the currently permitted hourly output capacity, physically or otherwise. Furthermore, the facilities should strive to use less biomass overall than they do currently.
- The Vermont Climate Council recommends that the state plan and prepare for the phase out of wood biomass electricity generation at the McNeil and Ryegate facilities and the phase up of other energy sources, complemented with other important actions such as efficiency and consumption reduction.
After three hours of debate, which included public comment, the full council ultimately rejected the task group’s recommendations in a two-vote process. The first vote was to decide which of two options regarding a study would be adopted before a vote on overall approval.
Option 1 is an investigation of when and how, and if, depending on the study results, to phase out Vermont’s two existing biomass electricity facilities as compared to available alternatives over different timescales. Option 2 is an investigation of when and how to phase out Vermont’s two existing biomass electricity facilities as compared to available alternatives over different timescales.
This resulted in the bizarre outcome of five in favor of Option 1, zero opposed to anything, nine abstaining, and seven absent. (Two of the 23 seats on the council are currently vacant.) Since the rules of the meeting required that a majority of those present vote in favor of any motion to pass, the abstainers won, and neither option moved forward. This for all intents and purposes made the second vote moot.
It happened anyway, and the second vote to approve the policy recommendations as written failed 11-1.
McNeil Generating Station – Burlington
The vote was controversial because, as supporters of the recommendation pointed out, the McNeil biomass power plant in Burlington is the largest emitter of CO2 in the state. Giving it preferential treatment in a law for reducing the state’s CO2 emissions seems absurd. It is, nevertheless, classified as a renewable energy source under state energy policy.
In addition to its greenhouse gas output, members of the Biomass Task Force as well as several public commenters noted that there are documented health impacts on the communities that live within a mile radius of the McNeil plant (opponents of the recommendation dispute the validity of these claims as being the sole responsibility for those adverse outcomes), and that those communities are disproportionately low-income and BIPOC. This, they argue, puts the rejection of the task group’s recommendations at odds with the Climate Action Plan’s mandates for a “just transition” away from fossil fuels.
Opponents of the recommendation didn’t necessarily disagree with task group’s points, although some argued these findings were not as conclusive as the task group was asserting. However, their argument was that McNeil, and to a lesser extent Ryegate, are indispensable components of not only Vermont’s energy supply, but also the ISO New England electric grid. Regardless of any other concerns, they are too important to fail.
As a source of baseload power (power that can run 24/7 and isn’t dependent upon the sun shining or wind blowing), biomass can’t be phased out a host of practical reasons. They noted, along with some other public commenters, that there are many jobs associated not just with the plants themselves but the forestry industry that supplies the wood chips the plants burn.
Bill Sayre, owner and operator of a lumber mill in Bristol, explained that the sale of low-grade wood — basically a waste product of the forestry industry — to the power plants could be the difference between profitability and going out of business for many foresters. If sustainably harvesting forests becomes economically unviable, Sayre worried that the most likely outcome is that forest land would be repurposed for development. This would lead to an even higher carbon footprint for Vermont.
One striking aspect of the debate was that many of the arguments made by those opposed to phasing out biomass — there are jobs at stake, it would raise costs for homeowners, it raises reliability questions, there are no realistic alternatives — could all be equally applied to the fossil-based heating fuel industry. The clean heat standard will cost fuel dealers their jobs, drive up costs for consumers, replace reliable heating sources with not ready for prime-time technology, and there is currently no realistic fuel supply source online and ready to replace oil.
This goes to show it’s not really about the science after all. It’s about the politics.
Rob Roper is a freelance writer who has been involved with Vermont politics and policy for over 20 years. © Copyright True North Reports 2023. All rights reserved.
The Vermont Climate Council and a Biomass Task Force? In Vermont, how many committees or task forces will it take to light a light bulb in this State? The farce and scam reveals itself. The truth is their hopes are pinned on the bioweapons to eliminate human CO2 en masse over the coming years. In the meantime, they will sterilize the youth, promote human sacrifice, and steal every dime possible from the taxpaying workers they psyop into submission.
Melissa,
How many Poles does it take to screw in a lightbulb, used to be a
well-known joke, but Poland has turned itself into an extremist Russia hater, and therefore is our friend and ally.
How many committees and task forces does it take to …. do whatever.
Here is the answer of Biden the teleprompter reader, regarding weakening Russia: “As much weapons and trained Ukrainians as can be produced, for as long as it takes”
Poland may want to consider what Germany and Japan are doing in defiance of US sanctions and the toxic US petro dollar. The Brits are unusually quiet. The French are in revolution mode. The EU is coming apart at the seams and that is a good thing.
Since Xi and Putin are allies now. Saudi Arabia and Iran have agreed to disagree and formed an alliance for the good of the region. It appears Poland and other NATO allies are going to be left twisting in the wind – but not enough wind to power their industries. The trade deals being made without the US or NATO nations alone are part and parcel of the war we are not supposed to know about. Ukraine is a stain that won’t wash out easy, but will be washed out one way or another. The Climate Council and the globalist clown posse are being destroyed by their own ignorant arrogance by an alliance of nations working against them.
Yup….The Vermont Climate Council …… the Biomass Task Group. Know what it all is? Basically gov’t run ideological/political entities….just like the Commissar Committees past of Stalin & Lenin times…and exact same thing goes on with ” commissar committees” in China, North Korea …Venezuela, Cuba etc….today…VT commissar committees are set up as powers bases, and mimic the historical Communist ones 🙂
Here are a couple definitions of “Commissar”…..it fits like glove to what VT is doing…legislatively, and with the myriad of outside Eco-Enviro ideological “committee’s”:
“An official of the Communist Party in charge of political indoctrination and the enforcement of party loyalty.”
“A person who tries to control public opinion.”
Ya’ just can’t get a better match than that…what VT has become.. and they are too blinded to realize what they really are doing.
I will continue to burn dirty firewood for heat in my inefficient wood stove.
The flue gases of wood/pellet burning stoves, and power plants has TENS OF MILLIONS OF SUB-MICRON PARTICLES PER CUBIC CENTIMETER.
There are no cleaning systems that can remove such small particles.
They are invisible, which is wonderful for politicians
They are very toxic, similar to coal.
They are absorbed, via your lungs, into your tissues AND STAY THERE TO CAUSE CANCER AND OTHER DISEASES AT A LATER DATE.
This has been known by scientists and doctors for at least 40 years, but not by the general public, because of clever PR, and complicit lapdog media
When you get to be 65 or 70 years old, stacking firewood for drying, carying firewood into the house each day, putting the firewood into the bin next to the wood stove, putting the firewood into the wood stove, meaning handling tons of wood FOUR TIMES, and then removing the ashes, gets pretty stale.
Trust me, I have been there.
I have a VERY CLEAN BURNING, LOW CO2, NO PARTICULATE, PROPANE STOVE. IT IS SOOOO MUCH HEALTIER
The two options read almost identical. An editing error perhaps or did I miss a point Mr. Roper was trying to make?
It is all about the politics.
It always has been.
Think about this.
If the oceans were rising and the entire planet was going to die in decades.. (what is Al Gore’s most recent prediction? forgive me for losing count)
IF it was all going down the drain as they’d have us believe, they’d not be a commercial loan given out for a single project over a certain dollar figure– anywhere.
How do you loan money on multi-million and BILLION dollar housing and commercial ventures when the weather is going to destroy us all?
I mean think about how stupid this all is- that they are selling us.
Why is the state spending money on infrastructure– why are we planning anything into the future if we are all going to die in weather related disasters?
The answer is that we are not.
The world is not ending or slowing down.
Because if it was, these bankers sure wouldn’t be lending anymore.
These bankers are very busy setting up $multi-million wind and solar tax shelters for the wealthy, while legislators, bought with campaign contributions, are making it possible by lying, as if it is printed, with help of the captive/lapdog media, to already-struggling Vermont households trying to deal with high inflation, high interest rates, small wage increases, prices rising at higher rates than “official”, no matter what you buy; six ounce of cheese was $4.99, now $6,99, just to mention one item.
It’s all just another Ponzi scam Willem.
Once you get the scams, you can see them everywhere.
The Biomass Taskforce is correct.
Both tree-fired power plants are less than 25% efficient.
That means the energy of 3 of 4 trees is wasted.
Those trees should have been left standing and growing to continue to sequester CO2, instead of INSTANTANEOUSLY releasing it by burning.
It takes 80 to 100 years to completely offset that combustion CO2 by new growth
But well before that time, those new trees will be cut, which means the renewable cycle will never be completed.
It is all about politics, jobs and costs, and upsetting the apple carts of entrenched special interests.
It is so much easier for cunning legislators to screw vulnerable, easy-target households, because they are not organized and have no lobbyists.
All this has nothing to do with fighting “climate change”, but everything with centralized, socialistic, government command/control of everything
The politics of climate evangelism center around money.
We’ll see more of the politics in 2025 when the litigation clause in the GWSA becomes effective.
No Doubt the CLF, VNRC and VPIRG have McNeil in their sights for the 2025 lawsuits. It will be a cash cow for these groups- the health and welfare of “marginalized groups” living near McNeil require compensation. It’s written into the GWSA- by the aforementioned groups of lawfare experts.
Nope, this vote was no fluke. Carefully planned and staged it appears.