Pam Arborio's Page

All,

With regard to renewable energy, it DOES matter what Vermont does, especially if it is on the wrong track to the detriment of Vermont’s economy, which has been in near-zero-growth mode since about 2007, which declining real household incomes since 2000.

Real household incomes of the middle, 4th and bottom quintiles peaked in 2000, 2000, 1999, respectively; in those peak years their incomes were $56,311, $33,815, $13,663; in 2012 their incomes were $51,179, $29,696, $11,490, for a decline from peak year of 9.1%, 12,2%, 15.9%.
http://advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Household-Income-Distribution.php

Already-struggling households and businesses have been dealing with a near-zero-growth Vermont economy since 2007, with the tax-burdened, hollowed-out, private sector shrinking relative to the growing, bloated government sector, which is acting as a wet blanket on the private sector, a sure recipe for economic stagnation, lack of well-paid employment growth (except in government), or worse.

At some point, clear-headed thinking must prevail, budgets must be cut, taxes must be reduced, or else Vermont's hollowed-out, PRIVATE, tax-paying economy will continue on its near-zero-growth path, less and less able to scrape up enough money to pay for the rapidly-increasing expenditures of government.

Vermont could have a much bigger bang for the buck, i.e., reduce more CO2/$, if it practiced increased energy efficiency, starting with:

- A strict energy code for NEW, subsidized net-zero-energy buildings, instead of expensively subsidized renewable energy projects; there is no money to do both at the same time.

- Increased surcharges on electricity guzzling households; the surcharge collected each month.

- Increased surcharges on gasoline and diesel guzzling light duty vehicles, i.e., cars, minivans, SUVs, ¼-ton trucks; the surcharge collected at time of registration.

VERMONT RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAMS

Vermont has subsidized about $500 million of renewable energy investments in the past 3.5 years and has practically nothing to show for it.
NOTE: It is amazing the Department of Public Service does not keep track of these numbers and post them, along with other project data, in spreadsheet format, on its website.

SPEED PROGRAM
The SPEED program, with help of subsidies from the Clean Energy Development Fund, produces expensive energy. Adding more money to the CEDF will worsen a bad situation.

Here are the production results for the SPEED Program, 2.2 megawatt or less:

2010.........5,980,779 kWh.......0.1387 $/kWh; Jul - Dec
2011......20,172,973 kWh........0.1644 $/kWh
2012......29,666,592 kWh........0.1716 $/kWh
2013…...44,822,813 kWh........0.1919 $/kWh

Vermont consumption......5,600,000,000 kWh/yr
http://vermontspeed.com/speed-monthly-production/

Here are the 2013 expected production results for the SPEED program, greater than 2.2 MW:

Searsburg… …11,660 MWh
Sheffield………83,395 MWh
Lowell…….....113,687 MWh
Georgia…....….21,024 MWh

Total.............229,766 MWh

Production of SPEED projects, 2.2 MW or less, was 0.8% of consumption in 2013, after investments of about $150 million over 3.5 years.

Production of SPEED projects, greater than 2.2 MW, was 4.1% of consumption in 2013, after investments of about $320 million over 3.5 years.

Just imagine what the capital cost would be for the unrealistic, starry-eyed 2011 Comprehensive Energy Plan goal of 90% of ALL energy from RE, not just electrical energy which is only 1/3 of all energy.

SOLAR
At end 2013, about 33 MW of solar panels, SPEED and non-SPEED, were installed that produced about 33 MW x 8,760 hr/yr x capacity factor 0.145 = 41,960 MWh. SPEED is compensated at an excessive 27 c/kWh for ALL energy fed into the grid, and non-SPEED, mostly roof-mounted solar systems, is compensated at 20 c/kWh for only the excess energy fed into the grid.
NOTE: The SPEED value of 27 c/kWh, set by the PSB, is at least