Dear Editor,
Despite how it is often presented, and unlike parts of California, Texas, and Pakistan, Vermont cannot rely exclusively on solar and wind for its electricity due to seasonal limitations and the fact that long-duration storage is not yet up to the task. Solar production drops 85-90% in a Vermont winter, and wind isn’t dependable enough to provide reliable baseload power. This means that other baseload sources need to work in conjunction with solar and wind, or the lights go out.
Under the 100% Renewable Energy Standard (RES) of 2024, Vermont utilities must replace existing nuclear power (about 25% of Vermont’s current total power) by 2030. With limited new in-state hydroelectric options, this will require more electricity from burning biomass ($0.10-$0.11/kWh), which is renewable and local but not clean or inexpensive.
That said, with legislative action, other options could be made available. The options include more out-of-state hydropower (clean, but limited, $0.03-$0.08/kWh); nuclear power (clean, a close second to solar for safety, but some waste, $0.03-$0.08/kWh); and darkness (cheap and clean, but dark and cold, $0.00/kWh).
Prior to the RES updates from 70% to 100% in 2024, only 3% of Vermont’s pollution came from electricity generation, while 71% comes from our cars and home heating. The 100% Renewable Energy Standard is raising electricity rates, reducing reliability, and further hindering the adoption of cleaner transportation and home-heating options. This raises the question of why so much energy was devoted to changing the Renewable Energy Standard to 100% and why it stipulates renewable, but not necessarily clean, electricity generation.
There are about 7 million deaths per year from air pollution, and Vermonters already have high energy bills. Do you feel the 100% RES makes sense and addresses Vermont’s needs as currently written? If not, please contact your representatives.
Thank you,
Ian Buchanan
East Montpelier, Vt.