This story was originally published on FYIVT.com and republished here with permission

By Dave Soulia

In the early 2000s, Vermont proudly held the title of the nation’s least-polluting state, thanks largely to the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant. Providing a steady stream of carbon-free energy, Vermont Yankee helped keep the state’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to a minimum. However, in just over a decade, Vermont’s environmental standing has shifted. After the controversial shuttering of Vermont Yankee and the adoption of aggressive climate policies by the Democrat Party-led legislature, Vermont now finds itself ranked fourth among the least-polluting states—a significant decline from its former top position.

Vermont Yankee: The Beginning of the Shift

The Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant, located in Vernon, was a major contributor to Vermont’s clean energy profile. At its peak, the plant provided around one-third of the state’s electricity, all without emitting greenhouse gases. Vermont’s position as the least-polluting state was in large part thanks to this single power source.

However, the plant became the target of environmental groups like the New England Coalition, which campaigned for its closure due to concerns about nuclear safety and radioactive waste. In 2014, their efforts, combined with political pressure from the state’s Democrat-controlled legislature, succeeded in shutting down Vermont Yankee.

The decision to close the plant came despite warnings that it would lead to increased emissions and higher electricity costs for Vermonters. With the closure, Vermont was forced to rely more on imported electricity from fossil-fuel-based sources, leading to a significant rise in its GHG emissions. As a result, the state fell from the top spot to fourth place among the least-polluting states in the U.S.

The Financial Fallout: Ratepayers Pay, Utilities Benefit

Compounding the environmental impact was the financial toll on Vermont ratepayers. Prior to the closure of Vermont Yankee, Central Vermont Public Service (CVPS), the utility serving much of the state, was bailed out by ratepayers to the tune of $21 million. When CVPS was acquired by Green Mountain Power (GMP), ratepayers were supposed to be reimbursed for this bailout.

However, GMP retained the funds, benefiting the company and its shareholders while ratepayers saw no return on their investment. Even more troubling, the merger, coupled with the need for more expensive energy sources, led to rising electricity rates across the state. This left many Vermonters feeling as though their financial sacrifice had been for nothing. Read more about the GMP $21 million bailout controversy here.

Climate Hysteria: The Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA)

Around the same time, climate change became the rallying cry for many of the same groups that had pushed for Vermont Yankee’s closure. VPIRG (Vermont Public Interest Research Group), along with other environmental organizations, began lobbying for even more aggressive action to address climate change, despite Vermont’s tiny contribution to global GHG emissions, which sits at around 0.015%.

With pressure from these groups, the Democrat-controlled legislature passed the Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA), S.267 in 2020. This legislation set aggressive emissions reduction targets: 26% below 2005 levels by 2025, 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, and 80-95% below 1990 levels by 2050.

The GWSA also opened the door for lawsuits if the state fails to meet these targets, adding legal pressure on top of the economic burden. Critics of the act argue that, given Vermont’s already minuscule share of global emissions, the cost to Vermonters far outweighs any potential global benefits.

During the debate, Sarah Copeland-Hanzas, who spearheaded the GWSA and is now Vermont’s Secretary of State, dismissed polite objections to her use of phrases like “settled science” and “scientific consensus.” Her response? “I don’t have time for people like you.” Such statements only deepened the frustration felt by many Vermonters who were skeptical of the one-size-fits-all approach.

Economic Consequences: A Heavy Burden for Vermonters

The GWSA and other climate policies have led to significant concerns about the financial burden they place on Vermont residents. The state is pushing for the electrification of transportation and home heating, which means higher taxes on gasoline, diesel, and heating oil. The result? Vermonters, especially those in rural areas who rely heavily on these fuels, are facing steep increases in their cost of living.

One particularly dismissive response came from Senator Mark MacDonald during a discussion on the rising costs of heating. When questioned about how rural Vermonters might cope with increased energy prices, his response was: “Just wear a sweater.” This flippant remark only deepened the frustration of many residents who feel their economic concerns are being ignored in favor of theoretical emissions reductions.

Furthermore, the push to electrify everything requires billions of dollars in upgrades to Vermont’s electric grid. With the increasing use of electric vehicles (EVs) and heat pumps, Vermont’s aging grid will need to be expanded and modernized. These upgrades are expected to further drive up electricity rates, which have already risen since the closure of Vermont Yankee.

The Global Reality: One Volcano or China’s Coal Plants Can Negate Vermont’s Efforts

As Vermont pursues its aggressive climate goals, a sobering reality looms: the state’s entire emissions reduction plan could be easily negated by factors beyond its control. For example, a single significant volcanic eruption, such as the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption, can release more carbon dioxide (CO₂) in a few days than Vermont emits in decades. Mount Pinatubo emitted 42 million metric tons of CO₂—nearly nine times Vermont’s annual emissions.

Moreover, while Vermont works to reduce its already tiny GHG emissions, China is continuing to build new coal plants at an alarming rate. Each new coal plant can emit 3-4 million metric tons of CO₂ annually, rivaling or exceeding Vermont’s yearly emissions. In the span of time that Vermont is working to achieve its GWSA targets, China could add dozens of coal plants, effectively negating any reduction Vermont achieves.

The stark reality is that Vermont’s GHG reductions—no matter how aggressive—will make no meaningful dent in global emissions, especially when volcanic eruptions or new coal plants in countries like China release far more CO₂ than Vermont could ever hope to offset.

The Overlap: Environmental Groups and Political Power

Interestingly, many of the same environmental groups that pushed for Vermont Yankee’s closure are now at the forefront of the state’s climate policy efforts. VPIRG, New England Coalition, and others have successfully lobbied the Democrat Party-led legislature to adopt their preferred policies, despite the economic and environmental consequences.

This close alignment between environmental advocacy groups and Vermont’s political leadership has led to a situation where policies are being implemented with little regard for public input or economic realities. Instead, the focus remains on achieving theoretical emissions reductions, no matter the cost to Vermonters.

A Path Back to #1: Nuclear Power as the Solution?

Despite the challenges Vermont faces, there is a clear path the state could take to reclaim its position as the least-polluting state: building a new generation nuclear power plant. Nuclear power remains one of the most reliable and scalable sources of carbon-free energy available today. If Vermont were to invest in a modern nuclear plant, it could rapidly reduce its GHG emissions and stabilize electricity rates.

Such a move could place Vermont back at the forefront of low-carbon energy production as quickly as the plant could be built. This solution would likely achieve the state’s emissions goals far more efficiently than the current mix of costly electrification and renewable mandates, while also ensuring energy reliability.

Conclusion

Vermont’s journey from the nation’s least-polluting state to one of the top four least-polluting states has been marked by controversial decisions, financial sacrifices from its residents, and a growing sense of government overreach. As the state pushes forward with its aggressive climate agenda, the question remains: Can Vermont afford to keep following this path, knowing that its efforts could be easily negated by forces far beyond its control—or is a return to nuclear power the key to Vermont’s future?