For the past two posts, I have been down in the weeds trying to make sense of the Vermont Public Service Department (PSD) request for comments on the 2015 Vermont Comprehensive Energy Plan. This plan describes the methodology for forcing Vermont energy to become 90% renewable, in all sectors, by 2050.
90% renewable can't actually be achieved in Vermont. However, the PSD has attempted to hide that simple fact by generating hundreds of pages of prose, and tens of pages of requests for feedback.
As I say, I was down in the weeds reviewing this endless prose. What a waste of time.
|The New Vermont? No ten-acre lots here.|
Wikipedia picture of NYC,
with note of population density
approx 28K people per square mile
The Vision Goal
The real question is: What is the goal of this draconian plan? What is the vision? What is Vermont's future supposed to look like?
While I was parsing bureaucratic rambling, Bruce Parker of Vermont Watchdog reviewed the visionary goals of the plan.
Parker's recent article describes the Green Vision for the Future of Vermont, as expounded by David Blittersdorf. Blittersdorf is the president of All Earth Renewables in Vermont, and a strong supporter (some would say "crony") of Governor Shumlin. Blittersdorf supports the Vermont Comprehensive Energy Plan, and frankly, stands to profit by it. Blittersdorf gave a presentation to the Addison County Democrats: Parker reviewed it.
Here are some quotes from the Blittersdorf vision for Vermont.
“The car has been our No. 1 reason we consume so much energy. Suburbia is built around the car; our highway system is heavily subsidized around the car….In Vermont, people like to live 10, 20, 30 miles from work. That’s going to disappear. The 10-acre lot way out in the middle of nowhere on a dirt road is not going to be working anymore. "
Please read Parker's article at Watchdog: Green Energy CEO: Vermonters Must Abandon the Car, Embrace Renewable Energy Future. It is illustrated with fine picture of Governor Peter Shumlin stepping out of his Suburban to attend a rally. Click on the link and read it. Look at the comments, too.
Choice or Mandate, in my opinion
Yes. Living in cities is more energy-efficient. This is true. World-wide, more people are choosing to live in cities.
However, I believe in choice. In choosing to live in cities, or choosing not to live in cities. I want inexpensive energy so people can make choices.
Vermont is mandating only-renewable-energy, no nuclear, no fossil…. and therefore energy will be expensive, cars will be unavailable, and everyone-will-have-to-move. No ten-acre lots out in the country, not for Vermont anymore! Is New York City the model for Vermonters?
This is not environmentalism This is coercion and arrogance.
Meanwhile, the lords and masters can still drive their Suburbans?
Blittersdorf presentation to the Addison County Democrats on June 8, 2015, Youtube.
My down-in-the-weeds post about the renewable energy plan.