Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

GraniteGeekNH t1_j72qyxw wrote

tl;dr - Other places create lots of pollution so we shouldn't bother to reduce our pollution because it's difficult and expensive.

16

sauerbratenspaetzle t1_j73eqkc wrote

Well said. The author's throwing shade on his ex-employer and the state of VT, where he probably felt like a fish out of water, and being anti-science aligns with his new job as "president of Continental Economics, an energy consulting firm based in New Mexico." They literally help corporations fight regulation and are concerned with ECONOMICS, not the ENVIRONMENT.

7

redeggplant01 OP t1_j72sa6u wrote

Someone didnt read the article otherwise they know their comment is dead wrong

−7

sauerbratenspaetzle t1_j73fxer wrote

OP, you need to read the fine print because this isn't a news article... it's a biased COMMENTARY. The author is the president of a consulting firm that uses litigation to help corporations fight regulation from government and maximize profits.

Additionally, I don't see where the author fulfilled the requirements for submitting a commentary to VTdigger.org (town of residence and a brief biography, including affiliations with political parties, lobbying or special interest groups). I doubt he even still lives in the northeast if he works for a consulting firm based in New Mexico.

From the VTDigger.org website:

"About Commentaries

VTDigger.org publishes 12 to 18 commentaries a week from a broad range of community sources. All commentaries must include the author’s first and last name, town of residence and a brief biography, including affiliations with political parties, lobbying or special interest groups. Authors are limited to one commentary published per month from February through May; the rest of the year, the limit is two per month, space permitting. The minimum length is 400 words, and the maximum is 850 words. We require commenters to cite sources for quotations and on a case-by-case basis we ask writers to back up assertions. We do not have the resources to fact check commentaries and reserve the right to reject opinions for matters of taste and inaccuracy. We do not publish commentaries that are endorsements of political candidates. Commentaries are voices from the community and do not represent VTDigger in any way. Please send your commentary to Tom Kearney, commentary@vtdigger.org."

7

ProlapsedMasshole t1_j72v506 wrote

I just read it and that's how it came across to me?

What's your interpretation?

6

redeggplant01 OP t1_j72viy9 wrote

Then you missed

"The “LEAP” model used by the consultants (Energy Futures Group of Hinesburg), which was developed by the Stockholm Environment Institute and funded by the Swedish government, plus numerous environmental groups and renewable energy proponents, is available to the public. But the actual data assumptions used by the consultants and the results produced by the LEAP model are not.

The Ethan Allen Institute’s recent open records request to the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources turned up nothing. According to the agency, the data used for all of the modeling and the detailed results were not part of the “deliverables” from the consultants who wrote the action plan. Thus no independent review of the costs and supposed benefits is possible. "

−2

ProlapsedMasshole t1_j730226 wrote

No I didn't. How does what you quoted counter that initial conclusion?

6

redeggplant01 OP t1_j7354y0 wrote

Then you missed

"The “LEAP” model used by the consultants (Energy Futures Group of Hinesburg), which was developed by the Stockholm Environment Institute and funded by the Swedish government, plus numerous environmental groups and renewable energy proponents, is available to the public. But the actual data assumptions used by the consultants and the results produced by the LEAP model are not.

The Ethan Allen Institute’s recent open records request to the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources turned up nothing. According to the agency, the data used for all of the modeling and the detailed results were not part of the “deliverables” from the consultants who wrote the action plan. Thus no independent review of the costs and supposed benefits is possible. "

−3

ProlapsedMasshole t1_j73ecjd wrote

No I didn't. How does what you quoted and bolded counter that initial conclusion?

See, I can copy, paste and add formatting too.

5

piscatator t1_j734izw wrote

The key part of the article is the writer is EX-Planner for VT Dept of Energy. The most significant part of Vermont’s energy policy was creating a Utility for Energy Efficiency. It is estimated that Vermonters will save a billion dollars in energy they will not use because of the Utility’s work.

4

UnfairAd7220 t1_j78u8r8 wrote

Did you actually say 'save' ratepayers a billion dollars?

Yet, with all the renewables on line, regional power costs have doubled, and show no signs of abating.

The author is correct. Admit it to yourselves. Doing something that's expensive for nothing other than virtue signaling is both dumb and pointless.

−1

piscatator t1_j79hreu wrote

I was wrong. Vermont Efficiency has saved Vermont ratepayers an estimated 3 Billion dollars since its inception, not a billion. As Amory Lovins stated many years ago the cheapest electricity is the kilowatts you don’t use. Oh and Vermonters have averaged .20 cents a kWh to NH’s .26 cents over the last two years while greatly increasing the amount of renewable energy produced electricity. Vermont actually has an energy plan and it’s working to decrease the cost of electricity for the ratepayers and make the source of that electricity more secure and environmentally friendly.

2

UnfairAd7220 t1_j79nhb0 wrote

Avoided cost isn't a savings. The meanings are not interchangeable. Renewables, like solar and wind are only available 25% and 35% of the time.

How much would we have saved if we kept VT Yankee going?

'Decreasing the cost of power' would have it well below a .10, seeing that's where it was even a couple years ago.

VT has a helluva plan.

ISO NE is hanging on by it's fingernails.

1

piscatator t1_j7awjgo wrote

Cost avoidance vs. cost savings explained.

Avoided cost refers to a cost that is not present now, but which is certainly coming in the future. So for example if I maintain my homes heating and cooling systems with regular maintenance it will last longer and I will avoid the cost of replacing the system early but not entirely.

Cost savings like the work Vermont Efficiency does means the home that uses 1000kwh to heat it every month now only uses 750kwh to create the same amount of heat. This equates to real dollars saved that can be spent elsewhere or put in the bank.

1