|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Senator Peter Welch has introduced the American Renewable Energy Act (AREA), aiming to transition the United States to at least 70% renewable energy by 2034 and up to 100% by 2044. Promoted as a solution to high energy bills and a pathway to a cleaner future, the legislation follows a familiar playbook of ambitious targets and promises of long-term savings. However, closer scrutiny raises questions about its feasibility, the cost to taxpayers, and its focus on renewable mandates over foundational energy infrastructure upgrades.
This isn’t Welch’s first attempt at such legislation. A similar version introduced in 2021 failed to gain traction in Congress, raising concerns about the practicality and necessity of reintroducing it. Critics argue that taxpayer dollars spent drafting, promoting, and debating this bill could have been better allocated to address pressing, tangible issues, such as upgrading aging energy infrastructure.
The Bill’s Ambitions
The AREA sets aggressive renewable energy benchmarks for retail electricity suppliers: 20% by 2025, 70% by 2034, and 100% by 2044. It also mandates an increasing share of distributed renewable resources like rooftop solar. Penalties for noncompliance would fund renewable energy projects in underserved communities. Welch touts the bill as a win for consumers, claiming it will cut energy costs and create a more equitable energy future.
Yet the proposed targets raise concerns. Experts note that the U.S. power grid, including Vermont’s, is outdated and struggling to meet current demands. Without significant upgrades, it is ill-equipped to handle the intermittent nature of solar and wind energy or the increased load from electrification initiatives, such as electric vehicles and heat pumps.
Vermont’s Energy Past: A Parallel to the Present
The dynamics of Welch’s bill echo Vermont’s 2012 Central Vermont Public Service (CVPS) and Green Mountain Power (GMP) merger. At the time, CVPS customers were owed $21 million from a previous bailout. Instead of direct refunds, the Public Service Board approved a plan to “invest” those funds in energy efficiency programs. While touted as beneficial to consumers, the decision left many Vermonters feeling shortchanged.
Similarly, Welch’s AREA proposes to redirect penalties and fees into renewable energy projects rather than addressing immediate concerns like grid modernization or direct consumer relief. In both cases, funds are channeled into politically favored initiatives under the guise of future savings, leaving taxpayers and ratepayers to shoulder the financial risk.
Overlooking Infrastructure
Critics of the AREA argue that it focuses on the wrong end of the problem. Achieving 100% renewable energy or zero emissions requires an ultra-modern, ultra-efficient energy infrastructure. Vermont’s and the nation’s power grids need substantial upgrades to handle the demands of renewable energy integration. Without these upgrades, the additional energy generated from solar panels, wind turbines, and hydroelectric dams could overwhelm transmission lines and substations, leading to inefficiencies, outages, or even grid failures.
Investing in infrastructure would also strengthen national security. The U.S. grid is vulnerable to cyberattacks and physical disruptions, risks that increase with the adoption of decentralized renewable systems. A modernized grid would not only support clean energy but also ensure reliability and resilience in the face of growing threats.
National Security Concerns
Welch’s bill also sidesteps the geopolitical implications of a rapid renewable transition. While the U.S. moves away from fossil fuels, adversaries like China and Russia continue to rely on them to fuel their economies and militaries. China, for instance, dominates the production of rare earth minerals essential for renewable technologies, creating supply chain vulnerabilities for the U.S.
Additionally, the U.S. military, which depends heavily on fossil fuels for operations, would face challenges if domestic production dwindled. A weakened energy infrastructure could compromise national defense, further exacerbating vulnerabilities.
Economic and Consumer Impacts
Proponents of renewable energy often promise long-term savings, but Vermonters have experienced firsthand how these promises can fall short. High-profile failures like Solyndra—a solar company that collapsed after receiving over $500 million in federal loans—highlight the risks of government-backed green investments.
Mandating renewables without addressing costs could lead to rate hikes as utilities pass compliance expenses onto consumers. Vermonters, already burdened with high energy bills, may see little immediate relief. Meanwhile, the penalties and fees proposed in Welch’s bill resemble a redistribution mechanism, using taxpayer dollars to fund projects chosen by policymakers rather than the market.
Alternatives Ignored
Welch’s bill misses an opportunity to prioritize pragmatic solutions. Investments in grid modernization and advanced nuclear power could provide the foundation for a cleaner energy future without the pitfalls of over-reliance on intermittent renewables. Modern nuclear reactors, for example, offer reliable, zero-emission power and complement renewable sources.
By focusing on infrastructure and energy diversity, policymakers could reduce emissions while ensuring affordability, reliability, and security. These solutions would address immediate needs while laying the groundwork for long-term sustainability.
Conclusion
Senator Welch’s American Renewable Energy Act reflects a broader trend in energy policy: ambitious goals overshadowing practical realities. Like Vermont’s CVPS-GMP merger, the bill redirects resources into politically favored initiatives, leaving critical infrastructure and consumer needs unmet.
While the transition to renewable energy is an important goal, achieving it requires starting with the basics. Upgrading the grid, embracing modern nuclear power, and ensuring energy independence should be the first steps. Instead of repeating the mistakes of the past, policymakers should focus on practical, cost-effective solutions that benefit all Vermonters.
In the end, Welch’s bill raises an important question: are we building a sustainable future, or just another costly experiment?
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Commentary
These are the idiots, yes idiots, the majority of Vermont voted in. Wake up morons! These people don’t care about you, your families, your day to day, none of it. They care about your tax revenue and their buddies. Open your eyes, this crap will continue to be pushed on us, this state needs to go red, anyone else?
Like everything Peter and Bernie propose, it doesn’t have a chance in hell.
notice nobody is talking about ANY of the ideas to produce power from other sources than we are currently using? Never any talk of this? Why not?
If they offer hope of an alternative that makes sense, they can no longer push their current agenda. Control and money are their true currency.
Just say it, Neil. HYDRO QUEBEC (HQ)!
The fourth largest renewable energy supplier in the world, supplying electricity for 1/3rd the cost per kwh as does solar and wind.
Not only is HQ only a stone’s throw from Vermont, it already supplies 30% of Vermont’s electricity, it’s parent organization owns Green Mountain Power, not to mention all of the hydro dams on the CT River.
Where does Peter Welch stand on this ‘happenstance’? Well, let us ask Peter’s wife, Margaret Cheney, one of the three commissioners on Vermont’s Public Utilities Commission (PUC).
The illustration above says it all.
There are Trillions at stake in the ClimateChange™ racket,
welch wants to increase his cut.
Ambitious targets and promises of long-term savings sure it will, hold on to your wallets !!
Welch is just another puppet with propaganda from special interest, look at his proposal ……………….
We deserve better, Welch is just another black eye for Vermont DC elected officials, wake up people.
Your article raises some critical concerns, and I’d like to address them comprehensively. While the ambitions of the American Renewable Energy Act (AREA) are laudable, history and practical realities suggest potential failure modes and unintended consequences that demand scrutiny. Let’s consider how these might be mitigated:
1. Infrastructure Challenges
Grid Modernization: The U.S. grid, as noted, is not ready to handle the load and variability of increased renewable energy integration. How will AREA ensure that significant investments are allocated for grid modernization before—or alongside—the push for higher renewable benchmarks? Will there be provisions to strengthen transmission infrastructure, support decentralized systems, and build resilience against outages or cyber threats?
Reliability Issues: Intermittent renewable sources like wind and solar require robust energy storage solutions. How will AREA incentivize advancements in battery technologies or complementary energy sources like nuclear to ensure grid stability during low production periods?
2. Economic Impacts on Consumers
Energy Costs: With utilities potentially passing the cost of compliance and infrastructure upgrades to consumers, how does AREA plan to protect households already burdened by high energy bills? Will there be subsidies or direct relief measures to offset rate increases for vulnerable populations?
Redistribution Concerns: Redirecting penalties into renewable projects, rather than directly assisting consumers, might echo the grievances from Vermont’s CVPS-GMP merger. How will AREA ensure transparency and equitable distribution of these funds? Could a portion be directly funneled into lowering consumer energy costs or addressing immediate grid deficiencies?
3. National Security and Supply Chain Dependencies
Rare Earth Dependency: The reliance on China for rare earth minerals critical to renewable technologies is a glaring vulnerability. How does AREA plan to address these supply chain issues? Will it include measures to incentivize domestic mining, recycling of critical materials, or research into alternatives?
Defense Implications: With the military heavily reliant on fossil fuels, how does AREA propose to balance renewable transitions with national security needs? Are there contingency plans for ensuring energy independence while maintaining operational readiness?
4. Overlooked Alternatives
Nuclear Energy: Modern nuclear power offers a reliable, zero-emission complement to renewables. Why does AREA not prioritize this proven technology alongside wind and solar? Will the legislation include provisions to support the development and deployment of advanced nuclear reactors?
Energy Efficiency: Improving energy efficiency in existing systems is often the most cost-effective way to reduce emissions. Will AREA expand its scope to prioritize retrofitting buildings, upgrading appliances, and incentivizing conservation?
5. Unintended Consequences of Mandates
Market Distortions: Mandates can lead to misallocation of resources, favoring politically chosen projects over market-driven solutions. What safeguards will AREA include to ensure that funds are allocated based on clear cost-benefit analyses rather than political considerations?
Utility Noncompliance: How will AREA address the risk of utilities choosing to pay penalties rather than investing in compliance? Could this lead to a cycle where penalties fund projects in underserved areas but fail to incentivize systemic change?
6. Feasibility of Targets
Historical Lessons: Given the failure of Welch’s similar 2021 bill, what has changed to make this version more viable? How will AREA ensure bipartisan support and buy-in from key stakeholders, including utilities and state governments?
Timeline Realism: Are the benchmarks of 70% renewable energy by 2034 and 100% by 2044 realistically achievable? What contingencies are in place if technological, economic, or logistical challenges delay progress?
7. Long-Term Vision
Balanced Energy Portfolio: Instead of an all-in approach on renewables, why not advocate for a diversified energy mix that includes renewables, nuclear, and transitional fossil fuels? This would enhance reliability, affordability, and sustainability while minimizing risks.
Consumer Trust: How will AREA address skepticism stemming from past initiatives like Vermont’s CVPS-GMP merger? Will there be independent oversight and mechanisms for public accountability to rebuild confidence?
Final Thoughts and Questions
The overarching issue with AREA appears to be its focus on ambitious targets without addressing foundational prerequisites. The intention to create a cleaner energy future is commendable, but ambition alone won’t prevent unintended consequences that could exacerbate the very problems the legislation seeks to solve.
How will AREA ensure that investments in renewable energy do not come at the expense of immediate consumer needs or grid reliability?
Can we prioritize infrastructure modernization and energy diversification to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past?
Finally, are there mechanisms within the legislation to course-correct if the approach proves unsustainable or inequitable?
The transition to renewable energy is a marathon, not a sprint. A well-rounded, pragmatic approach that builds public trust, strengthens critical infrastructure, and balances long-term goals with immediate realities is essential to avoid turning AREA into another costly, polarizing experiment.
BLACKMAIL AND BRIBERY ARE A DIRTY BUSINESS. Now lets talk embezzlement.