A broken energy system 

The Public Service Department acknowledges that Vermont energy policies and our rapid build-out will not affect climate change. The negative environmental impacts of the build-out are substantial: the fragmentation of forests, the loss of agricultural lands, the destruction of wildlife habitat, and the introduction of hundreds of acres of new impervious surfaces.

In the Vermont Land Trust annual report 2014-15 Walter Polman, VLT board chair and UVM scholar wrote, “not only do forests purify water as it flows through watersheds; they also soak it up and slow it down, decreasing the potential for erosion and flooding. Properly managed forest sequesters large amounts of carbon; as a result, they play an important role in mitigating climate change.”

According to the Vermont Department of Forest Parks and Recreation website, each acre of Vermont forestland can sequester the emissions of 62 gasoline-powered vehicles. In fact, Vermont forests remove most of the carbon that the state produces.

If our goal is to reduce carbon emissions, there are better ways to do it than covering Vermont with industrial power plants. For example, the two industrial wind plants in the Northeast Kingdom received around $80 million in federal tax dollars (our money). If that same $80 million had been spent to insulate Vermont homes, we would have insulated 23,000 Vermont homes. This would have saved Vermonters around $20 million every year and reduced our carbon emissions by more than twice what Lowell and Sheffield wind plants did. Vermont contractors would have done the work and Vermont homeowners would be enjoying the savings, keeping most of the money in the state.

One legislator said of our wind-and-solar-everywhere policy, “This is what Vermonters want.” I disagree. Most Vermonters would favor a more measured, thoughtful approach – an approach that was more respectful of our environment and our communities.

The most vocal advocates of our current path are those that profit from it. They posture as climate warriors and disparage those of us who question their motives as “deniers.” More and more Vermonters are seeing through this. As we become better informed, we understand how poorly-sited projects affect property values, families, communities and the environment. That is why over 50 towns have passed resolutions calling for energy siting reform. That is why two towns, Swanton and Irasburg, recently voted overwhelmingly to reject industrial wind development. In fact, since the turbines at Sheffield and Lowell went up, every town that has voted on wind has defeated it decisively.

The National Geographic Society rated Vermont fifth on its list of best destinations in the world because Vermont is “in excellent shape, relatively unspoiled, and likely to stay that way.” They also said “more than any other state Vermont has worked to preserve those qualities that make it unique such as scenic countryside, lively small towns, historic streetscapes and local business.”

According to the Burlington Free Press, tourism brings $1.6 billion into Vermont and one job in 10 relies on tourism. The vitality of our economy depends on our ability to protect the Vermont values that National Geographic cites. Right now, unrestrained energy development may be the biggest threats to those values.

We can reach our energy goals, but we should do it the Vermont way – small, local projects that benefit our communities while protecting our environment, our working landscape and our economy. I hope that you will join with me and demand that we fix the way we do energy in Vermont.