|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
By Guy Page
Vermont isn’t the only New England state with aggressive carbon reduction goals. If state governments continue to enforce mandates like Vermont’s 80% reduction by 2050, electricity rates will likely double, and New England will be subject to rolling blackouts due to unreliable electricity supply, New England ‘think tanks’ including the Ethan Allen Institute reported today.
That prediction has become even more likely in light of the re-election of President Donald Trump, whose administration is not seen as willing to bail out ratepayers whose states are committed to ultra-expensive off-shore wind generation.
“The voters sent a pretty clear message that they want economic pragmaistism over ideology, and they made that pretty clear,” Greg Moore, Americans for Prosperty
Furthermore, New England (and the rest of the nation) is moving towards ‘electrification’ of energy needs traditionally served by fossil fuels – such as home heat and transportation. And, the voracious power demands of Artificial Intelligence will soon become a big piece of the electricity consumption pie.
EAI and the other think tanks say that with New England state governments committed to reducing their carbon emissions at least 80% by 2050, residents and businesses can expect electricity rates to double, along with rolling blackouts, according to their new joint report. The study concludes that weather dependent “renewable” energies — like wind and solar — simply cannot meet regional demands for electricity.
“For the past decade, Vermont has passed successively more stringent laws and regulations regarding how electricity can be generated,” David Flemming of the Ethan Allen Institute said. “Ten years ago, the Legislature shut down the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant, which had been responsible for generating three-quarters of Vermont’s in-state generated electricity, all with zero carbon emissions. Vermont now generates less than half of the electricity that it did a decade ago.
“Since then, despite millions in wind and solar subsidies to favored companies, Vermont produced only 15% more wind and solar powered in-state generated electricity in 2024 than in 2014,” Flemming said. “At this rate, it would take over 140 years for Vermont to build enough in-state wind and solar generated electricity to replace the nuclear-generated electricity lost.
“Wind and solar are simply not affordable and reliable options. With over 170,000 households relying on electricity to power their furnaces, Vermont can ill afford to double down on a failing electricity generation strategy that places thousands at risk of losing electricity during the cold winter months.”
Gov. Phil Scott in recent years has said he is supportive of Vermont utilities purchasing off-shore wind generation – noting that they won’t be sited in Vermont.
Led by Always on Energy Research (AOER), a research organization dedicated to ensuring that every state in America has affordable, reliable energy, the report, The Staggering Costs of New England’s Green Energy Policies, was commissioned by the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy in New Hampshire, the Ethan Allen Institute in Vermont, the Fiscal Alliance Foundation in Massachusetts, the Maine Policy Institute, the Rhode Island Center for Freedom, and Prosperity, and Yankee Institute in Connecticut.
“Compliance with the New England Decarbonization Plans would cost $815 billion through 2050,” the report concludes. “New England families would see their electric bills increase by an average of $99 per year. Commercial businesses would see their costs increase by $489 per year. Industrial (manufacturing) customers would see their electric bills increase by an average of almost $5,280 per year.” The report shows that on a per-capita basis, the cumulative cost of the plans increases expenses for each person in New England by an additional $2,061 in 2030, $15,552 in 2040, and an additional $51,914 in 2050. All these increases will make New England more unaffordable.
Although the organizations support the goal of achieving a cleaner environment, the report finds that switching primarily to weather dependent “renewable” energy is not entirely feasible for the electrical grid of ISO-New England — an independent, not-for-profit corporation responsible for keeping electricity flowing across the six New England states. The study concludes that ISO-New England may be unable to coordinate electricity to power the region within 11 years, warning that “[i]f each of the New England states adheres to the same renewable-intensive path, a blackout scenario could be dire indeed.”
According to the study, powering New England without interruption during a year in which wind and sunshine are plentiful would require 225 gigawatts (GW) of renewables — or equivalent to power generated by 12,000 wind turbines and 129 million solar panels. Even more renewables would be required to power New England in a less sunny or windy year.
New England is responsible for less than 0.4% of global emissions; it is unclear just how much cleaner the environment will become in exchange for the costs that have been imposed on the region and its people.
Ultimately, the report finds that the cost of reducing carbon dioxide emissions under these plans exceeds the benefits of doing so, especially because in many cases, “green” policies have been enacted without any effort to quantify the environmental benefits they will secure. This raises the very real possibility that New England states are imposing net harm on their economies by imposing policies whose costs outweigh their benefits.
To read the full paper, click here.
Content for this news story was contributed by a news statement from Fiscal Alliance Foundation Press.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Energy
Vermont is the equivalent of Don Quixote when it comes to the environment. New Delhi pumps out more carbon in one day than Vermont does in five years, making the citizens of Vermont suffer needlessly makes no sense. Allows the Dems in charge to pat themselves on the back and say ” good job “.
A rational plan for New England should include expanding natural gas pipelines to make low cost natural gas energy from Pennsylvania, instead of imported high cost liquified natural gas from foreign countries, the fuel of choice for electric power plants, and other thermal processes.
Also, Vermont should invite proposals for a next generation nuclear power plant to be located at the site of the demolished Vermont Yankee power plant in Vernon where transmission infrastructure remains intact.
Now if we could only reduce the people 80% this would sound like a reasonable approach.
No?
I guess then it is not reasonable.
Just guessing, but I getting the feeling that there is more adventure which lies ahead to the people of Vermont. Buckle up.
Plant more trees. Zero point.
The FAF study referred to and linked in this article will be discredited by the d/p Climate Evangelists™ in both chambers. At 104 pages, it takes little speculation that anne watson or rebecca white will ever see it, much less read even the executive summary. In the same way that Natural Resources Secretary Julie Moore’s “back of napkin” 70 cent a gallon fee was discredited- until the 70 cents became $4.00 per gallon, so too will these figures be ignored. But the requirements established in the GWSA law require an obscene consumption of taxpayer, end user (consumer) and ratepayer dollars too great to bear. Vermont’s entire economy will inflate dangerously to feed the Climate Monster, until our economy breaks.
The naiveté of these legislative Climate worshippers toward Vermont’s economy and impact on people is astonishing and glaring. The results of Nov.5 have given us a chance at positioning adults in the committee rooms next year, to force reason and expose consequence of the fairy dust illusions of Vermont’s GWSA law.
legislative “leadership” must be held accountable for the actions of the past biennium as well as this upcoming session- and so too must phil scott be held accountable for his inactions- to sternly and severely admonish those legislators
that are indifferent to Vermont’s “affordability” problem and those that seek to ignore their oath and affirmations of office and instead worship at the altar of ClimateChange™ and NGO/donor influence.
Good points Mr. Bammo. The incoming Republicans (the “great replacement”) will need to be fluent in the details in order to effectively argue for repeal of the Big Three (GWSA, CHS, 100% unreliable). And you are right that the Governor needs to carry a big stick. He has the power to veto every bill that comes to his desk and if the Republicans stick with him those vetoes will be sustained. The Dem/Prog agenda could come to a screeching halt.
whirlygigs and sparky billboards are a useless form of electricity generation.
The real climate turned wind turbines into twisted metal pretzels when tornadoes struck them and hail stones the size of softballs pummled solar panels into junk. Where did all that metal, toxic metal, and yards upon yards of junk go afterwards? Most can’t be recycled, so did they bury it or ferry it into the ocean? What happens when flood waters wash all that equipment down stream? Is anyone fishing it out or unearthing it or can they even find it?
If a bomb cyclone hits those turbines off the coast, what will happen when those go down into the drink? Left there as relics of the stuppendous stupidity and thievery of our despot leadership? Where is Al Gore these days? Down in his bunker?
Idiocracy reigns supreme as they suck down chemical laden lattes and eat rice bowls full of plastic pieces resembling rice. At least the cricket plant in Canada went bust. Do not comply to lies.
So the goal of the “Green Deal” is to break the backs of businesses and people so that we are all reliant on the government! No thanks!
So the “Green Deal” will break the back of businesses and people so that we all become reliant on the government. No thanks!
Let me finish the headline: “…..and zero impact on climate change.”
There is no reason to cut carbon emissions.
These people are ignorant, malicious, and/or insane.