Vermont “Electrify-Everything” Goals Will Cost $Billions and Will Reduce Little CO2


The Vermont state government wants to electrify-everything (heat pumps, electric cars, and transit and school buses, no matter the:


1) Very high turnkey capital cost,

2) Very meager energy cost savings

3) Very meager CO2 reductions, on an A-to-Z, lifetime basis.


VT-DPS Survey of Vermont Heat Pumps


VT-DPS commissioned CADMUS to perform a survey of Vermont air source heat pumps (HPs), after numerous complaints from HP users regarding: 1) high electric bills and 2) minimal annual savings after installing HPs


The report and VT-DPS found the average energy cost savings regarding HPs was about $200/HP, as proven by the CADMUS survey report of operating data of 77 HPs at 65 sites. See URL and Appendix 1



Those meager energy savings would be more than offset by the annual amortizing cost of $4,500/HP at 3.5%/y for 15 years, plus any annual maintenance costs, and parts and labor costs. HPs are money losers for Vermonters. See URLs


The main result of Vermont’s HP saga has been:


1) Lucrative benefits to the Efficiency-Vermont-approved HP installers

2) Lucrative benefits to Canadian-owned GMP, which sells oodles more high-priced electricity.

3) Everyone else getting royally screwed; an example of “fighting” climate change; Don-Quixote tilting at wind mills.


Weatherizing Vermont’s Energy-Hog Houses

Please stop using the word “weatherizing”, which usually costs about $10,000/house.


Such a measure is not anywhere near sufficient for HPs to displace 100% of fossil fuel Btus with electricity Btus; it is a mere band-aid.

It is akin to whistling past the graveyard.


A house would have to be highly sealed, highly insulated, R40 walls, R60 ceiling, R20 basement, R7 windows, R10 doors, with exhaust heat recovery system, etc., to have HPs economically displace 100% of fossil fuel Btus with electricity Btus.

Vermont has a government-subsidized weatherizing program, that aims to decrease the energy consumption for heating, cooling and electricity of average Vermont houses. The average weatherizing cost is about $10,000/house.


However, owners who have weatherized should not think their house has become suitable for HPs to displace 100% of fossil fuel Btus with electricity Btus. Nothing could further from the truth!


I have a well-sealed, well-insulated house, i.e., it already is weatherized, but my 3 HPs, with 6 heads, economically displace only 35% of my fossil fuel Btus with electricity Btus, based on 2 years of operating data.


An HP in an average Vermont house displaces only 27.6% of the fossil fuel Btus with electricity Btus, as confirmed by the CADMUS survey report. See Appendix


A Vermont house would have to be highly sealed and highly insulated, and be oriented/designed for passive solar gain, to have HPs economically displace 100% of fossil fuel Btus with electricity Btus.


This is well known by energy engineers at VT-DPS, and EAN, and VEIC, and Efficiency-Vermont, etc.

Those engineers likely know of some very energy-efficient Vermont houses, with HPs that displace 100% of fossil fuel Btus with electricity Btus, year-after-year.

HPs are Uneconomical at Low Temperatures


HPs are very uneconomical at low temperatures, which is exactly the condition when your house requires the most space heat. With heat pump system losses, aka overhead, it would almost be like heating your house with electric heat; a very expensive hardship on cold days.


If a house had a space heat requirement of 11,500 Btu/h at 47F, the propane cost would be about 40 c/h, but the HP electricity cost would be about 16 c/h, for a saving of about 24 c/h


If a house had a space heat requirement of 35,000 Btu/h at 0F, the propane cost would be about 121 c/h, but the HP electricity cost would be about 141 c/h, for a loss of about 20 c/h

My Experience with HPs in my Well-Insulated, Well-Sealed House


I installed three HPs by Mitsubishi, rated 24,000 Btu/h at 47F, Model MXZ-2C24NAHZ2, each with 2 heads, each with remote control; 2 in the living room, 1 in the kitchen, and 1 in each of 3 bedrooms.


The HPs have DC variable-speed, motor-driven compressors and fans, which improves the efficiency of low-temperature operation.

The HPs last about 15 years. Turnkey capital cost was $24,000. GMP, the electric utility, provided a $2,400 subsidy.



My house has a wall-hung, efficient, propane furnace to provide: 1) space heating, and 2) domestic hot water, year-round.


The basement has a near-steady temperature throughout the year, because it has 2” of blueboard, R-10, on the outside of the concrete foundation and under the basement slab; the thermal storage of the concrete acts as a temperature stabilizer, which has saved me many thousands of space heating dollars over 35 years.


Winter Operation: Downstairs heads are used for space heating during winter. The upstairs heads are always off during winter.

If the sun is shining, my south-facing house warms up, and the HPs can be turned off by about 10 AM. They are turned on again around 4 to 5 PM

The basement has two small propane heaters to provide space heat to my 1,300 sq ft basement during winter; that heat rises to warm up the first floor. The heaters require no electricity, which is beneficial during a power outage.

Summer Operation: The downstairs and upstairs heads are used for space cooling during hot days in summer


Hourly Operating Cost of HPs Versus Efficient Propane Furnaces


Cold Weather: On 22 January, 2022, the temperature was -20F at my house. As a test, I operated my kitchen heat pump. After about 15 minutes, there was lukewarm air coming from the wall-mounted unit, but it was much less warm, than it would be at, say 15F. That lukewarm air did not heat my kitchen from 6 AM to 9 AM, so I turned off the HP and turned on my wall-hung, propane heater.


Conclusion: 1) The name cold-climate HP is merely an advertising gimmick, and 2) HPs are economic:


1) Down to about 15F to 20F in my well-sealed, well-insulated house, depending on wind and sun conditions

2) Down to about 28F to 35F in average Vermont houses, which are energy hogs, by modern standards


Burning Wood or Wood Pellets


If you have a wood stove or pellet stove, by all means use it, because it is the lowest-cost way to space heat houses, including Vermont energy-hog houses.

Be aware, the exhaust of woodstoves has mostly submicron particles (less than one millionth of a meter), that are most harmful to health, especially to: 1) people with heart and lung diseases, and 2) infants and children


A wood-burning open fireplace has negative efficiency, i.e., is sucks more heat out of a space, than it adds heat to a space. Do not use it at temperatures less than 35F.


These URLs are provided for information:









High Electricity Prices


Vermont forcing, with subsidies and/or GWSA mandates, the build-outs of expensive RE electricity systems, such as wind, solar, batteries, etc., would be counter-productive, because it would:


1) Increase already-high electric rates and

2) Worsen the already-poor economics of HPs (and of electric cars and buses)





Any experienced energy systems engineer can readily calculate the hourly cost of operating HPs and propane furnaces.

The HP operating cost per hour would become greater than of an efficient propane furnace, because HPs would become increasingly less efficient with decreasing temperatures. See table 3

Energy Cost Reduction Due to HPs is Minimal


- HP electricity consumption was from my electric bills

- Vermont electricity prices, including taxes, fees and surcharges, are about 20 c/kWh.

- My HPs provide space heat to 2,300 sq ft, about the same area as an average Vermont house

- Two small propane heaters provide space heat to my 1,300 sq ft basement

- I operate my HPs at temperatures of 15F to 20F, or greater; less $/h than propane

- I operate my wall-hung propane heater at temperatures of 15F to 20F, or less; less $/h than HP


- My average HP coefficient of performance, COP, was 2.64

- My HPs required 2,489 kWh to displace 35% of my fuel.

- My HPs would require 8,997 kWh, to replace 100% of my fuel.


- The average Vermont house COP is about 3.34, because the HPs typically operate at about 28F to 35F and above

- The average Vermont house requires 2,085 kWh to displace 27.6% of its fuel, per VT-DPS/CADMUS survey. See URL






Before HPs: I used 100 gal for domestic hot water + 250 gal for 2 stoves in basement + 850 gal for Viessmann furnace, for a total propane of 1,200 gal/y


After HPs: I used 100 gal for DHW + 250 gal for 2 stoves in basement + 550 gal for Viessmann furnace + 2,489 kWh of electricity.


My propane cost reduction for space heating was 850 - 550 = 300 gallon/y, at a cost of 2.339/gal = $702/y

My displaced fuel was 100 x (1 - 550/850) = 35%, which is better than the Vermont average of 27.6%

My purchased electricity cost increase was 2,489 kWh x 20 c/kWh = $498/y


My energy cost savings due to the HPs were 702 - 498 = $204/y, on an investment of $24,000!!


Amortizing Heat Pumps


Amortizing the $24,000 turnkey capital cost at 3.5%/y for 15 years costs about $2,059/y.

This is in addition to the amortizing of my existing propane system. I am losing money.



Other Annual Costs


There likely would be service calls and parts for the HP system, as the years go by.

This is in addition to the annual service calls and parts for my existing propane system. I am losing more money.


Energy Savings of Propane versus HPs


Site Energy Basis: RE folks claim there would be a major energy reduction, due to using HPs. They compare the thermal Btus of 300 gallon of propane x 84,250 Btu/gal = 25,275,000 Btu vs the electrical Btus of 2,489 kWh of electricity x 3,412 Btu/kWh = 8,492,469 Btu.


However, that comparison would equate thermal Btus with electrical Btus, which all engineers know is an absolute no-no.


A-to-Z Energy Basis: A proper comparison would be thermal Btus of propane vs thermal Btus fed to power plants, i.e., 25,275,000 Btu vs 23,312,490 Btu, i.e., a minor energy reduction. See table 1A


Almost all RE folks involved with the GWSA claim energy reductions from HPs.

They likely do not know how to compose table 1A

However, they mandate Vermonters what to do, to save the world from Climate Change

This is a case of the blind leading the gullible

Table 1A, Energy Savings

Heat in propane, Btu/y, HHV


Fuel to power plant, Btu/y


Fuel to power plant, kWh/y


Conversion efficiency


Fed to grid, kWh


Transmission loss adjustment, 2.4%


Distribution loss adjustment, 6.7%


Heat in propane, Btu/gal, HHV


Purchased propane, gal/y


Purchased electricity, kWh/y


Heat in propane Btu/gal, LHV


Standby, kWh


Defrost, kWh


To compressor, kWh




Heat for space heat, kWh




Furnace efficiency


Btu/y for space heat





CO2 Reduction due to HPs is minimal


My CO2 emissions for space heating, before HPs, were 850 gal/y x 12.7 lb CO2/gal, from combustion = 4.897 Mt/y


My CO2 emissions for space heating, after HPs, were calculated in two ways:


1) Market based, based on commercial contracts, aka power purchase agreements, PPAs

2) Location based, based on fuels combusted by power plants connected to the NE grid

See Appendix for details.


Market Based


Per state mandates, utilities have PPAs with Owners of low-CO2 power sources, such as wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, and biomass, in-state and out-of-state.

Utilities crow about being “low-CO2”, or “zero-CO2” by signing PPA papers, i.e., without spending a dime.

Energy Action Network, a pro-RE-umbrella organization, uses 33.9 g CO2/kWh (calculated by VT-DPS), based on utilities having PPAs with low-CO2 power sources.

Using that low CO2 value makes HPs look extra good compared with fossil fuels.


My CO2 of propane was 550 gal/y x 12.7 lb CO2/gal, combustion only = 3.168 Mt/y

My CO2 of electricity was 2,489 kWh x 33.9 g/kWh = 0.084 Mt/y

Total CO2 = 3.168 + 0.084 = 3.253 Mt/y

CO2 reduction is 4.897 - 3.253 = 1.644 Mt/y, based on the 2018 VT-DPS “paper-based” value of 33.9 g CO2/kWh


Location Based


Utilities physically draw almost all of their electricity supply from the high-voltage grid

If utilities did not have PPAs, and would draw electricity from the high-voltage grid, they would be stealing.

ISO-NE administers a settlement system, to ensure utilities pay owners per PPA contract.


Electricity travels as electric-magnetic waves, at near the speed of light, i.e., from northern Maine to southern Florida, about 1,800 miles in 0.01 second.

There is no physical basis for lay RE folks to talk about there being a “VT CO2” or a “NH CO2”, etc.


All electricity on the NE grid has one value for g CO2/kWh.

ISO-NE, the NE grid operator, calculated that value at 317 g CO2/kWh, at wall outlet, for 2018


My CO2 of propane was 550 gal/y x 12.7 lb CO2/gal, combustion only = 3.168 Mt/y

My CO2 of electricity was 2,489 kWh x 317 g/kWh = 0.789 Mt/y

Total CO2 = 3.168 + 0.789 = 3.897 Mt/y

CO2 reduction is 4.897 - 3.897 = 0.939 Mt/y, based on the 2018 “real world” value of 317 g CO2/kWh, as calculated by ISO-NE


Cost of CO2 Reduction is ($2059/y, amortizing - $204/y, energy cost savings + $200/y, service, parts, labor) / (0.939 Mt/y, CO2 reduction) = $2,188/Mt, which is outrageously expensive. 





EAN Excessive CO2 Reduction Claim to Hype HPs


EAN claims 90,000 HPs, by 2025, would reduce 0.37 million metric ton of CO2, in 2025, or 0.37 million/90,000 = 4.111 Mt/y.


EAN achieves such a high value, because EAN assumes 100% displacement of fuel (gas, propane, fuel oil), which is completely unrealistic, because the actual fuel displacement in Vermont houses with HPs was only 27.6%, based on a VT-DPS-sponsored survey of HPs in Vermont, and 35% in my well-insulated/well-sealed VT house, as above stated.


The EAN 100% claim would be true, only for highly sealed and highly insulated houses, which represent about 1.5% of all Vermont houses.

In addition, the average Vermont house would need 2 to 3 HPs, at a turnkey cost of at least $20,000, to achieve 100% displacement. See URL



Table 1/CO2 Reduction

With HP

With HP

Fuel displaced 35%



Market based

Location based

Electricity CO2, g/kWh



CO2 of 2489 kWh, Mt/y



CO2 of 550 gal of propane, Mt/y



Total CO2 with HPs, Mt/y



CO2 of 850 gal of propane, Mt/y



CO2 reduction, Mt/y




Fuel displaced 100%

CO2 reduction by EAN, Mt/y





This section covers various topics related to HPs


HP Operating Cost Per Hour


If HPs are operated at low temperatures, they have low COPs, which would result in a greater electricity cost per hour than using the displaced fuel.

See table 3 and page 5 of URL


At 27.6% Fuel Displacement: Vermont houses with HPs, operated down to about 28F, would require 2,085 kWh/y, to deliver 21,400,000 Btu, at an average COP of 3.34, to displace 27.6% of space heat, at an electricity cost of $417/y, per VT-DPS survey


At 35% Fuel Displacement: My HPs, operated down to 15F, would require about 2,489 kWh/y, to deliver 20,220,000 Btu, at an average COP of 2.64, to displace 35% of my space heat, at an electricity cost of $498/y


At 100% Fuel Displacement: My HPs, operated down to -10F, would require about 8,997 kWh/y, to deliver 57,290,000 Btu, at an average COP of 2.07, to displace 100% of my space heat, at an electricity cost of $1,799/y.


This would displace 850 gal of propane, at a cost of 850 x $2.339/gal = $1,988/y.


My energy cost savings would be 1,988 - 1,799 = $189/y, on an investment of $24,000 !!! 


Comments on table 2


- Vermont HP data was from VT-DPS survey. See Appendix and table 4

- My HPs were operated down to 15F, which is less than the VT HPs, hence my average COP = 2.64

- Most VT HPs are operated down to about 28F; the traditional space heating system is operated below 28F. See figure 14 of URL

- I can operate down to 15F, because of better insulation and sealing than an average Vermont house.

- If my HPs were operated down to -10F, i.e., 100% fuel displacement, my average COP would be 2.07



BTW, all energy systems engineers, including at EAN, know this, because every engineering college teaches that subject to its students.

Table 2

Vermont HPs

My HPs

Before HPs

Fuel Displacement, %






Down to 28F

Down to 15F

Down to -10F

Purchased electricity, kWh






Standby, kWh






Defrost, kWh





Btu/gal, LHV

Electricity to HPs, kWh








Space heat, kWh








Space heat, kWh





Highly Sealed, Highly Insulated Housing


If I had a highly sealed, highly insulated house, with the same efficient propane heating system, my house, for starters, would use very little energy for space heating, i.e., not much additional energy cost saving and additional CO2 reduction would be possible using HPs


If I would install HPs, and would operate the propane system down to 5F (which would involve greater defrost losses), I likely would displace a greater percentage of propane, and might have greater annual energy cost savings; much would depend on: 1) the total energy consumption, which is very little, because of my higher-efficiency house, and 2) the prices of electricity and propane. See Note.


I likely would need 3 units at 18,000 Btu/h, at a lesser turnkey capital cost. Their output, very-inefficiently produced (low COP), would be about 34,000 Btu/h at -10F, the Vermont HVAC design temperature.


However, any annual energy cost savings would be overwhelmed by the annual amortizing cost, and parts and service costs. i.e., I would still be losing money, if amortizing were considered.




1) About 1.5 percent of Vermont houses are highly sealed and highly insulated, i.e., suitable for economic use of HPs

2) Vermont’s weatherizing program, at about $10,000/unit, does next to nothing for making energy-hog houses suitable for HPs; it is a social program for poorer people.


Table 3 shows, I could have operated my HPs down to about 10F, instead of 15F, and break even regarding hourly cost of operation.

My 35% fuel displacement likely would increase to about 40 percent.


Table 3 shows, the cost of space heating at -10F is about 1.95/0.49 = 4 times greater than at 30F, whereas the space heat demand increased 40,000/20,000 = 2 times, due to HPs having low COPs at low temperatures, per Engineering Thermodynamics 101


BTW, the electricity draw by all HPs would place a high burden on pocket books and distribution grids, during such cold periods, at about the same time all those EVs would be charging.


In table 3, the COPs at low temperatures, 35F to 10F (bold), were adjusted downward for defrost losses.

The COPs, determined by manufacturers in a laboratory, exclude defrost losses, which were about 6.2%, per VT-DPS survey. See Appendix and URL


Most RE folks who write about, or analyze HPs: 1) fail to mention those losses, and 2) do not adjust the COPs



Cascading Benefits of a Highly Sealed and Highly Insulated Housing Stock


If my house were highly sealed and highly insulated, R-40 or better, R20 basement, etc.:


1) The space heat demand would be about 50% of the table values, such as 20,000 Btu/h at -10F

2) The electricity and propane cost would also be about 50% of the table values

3) The burden on the distribution grids and transmission grids would be about 50% less.

4) The need for new power plants and electric grids would be less.


All that falls under the heading, “putting the horse before the cart”, i.e., highly efficient housing stock first, then HPs

Table 3






Outdoor Temp


























































































Heat Pump Evaluation in Minnesota


The image on page 10 of URL shows:


1) Increasing COPs of an HP versus increasing outdoor temperatures (blue)

2) The defrost range from 37F down to 10F (yellow)

3) Operation of the propane back-up system from 20F to -20F (green).


Such operation would be least costly and would displace propane, that otherwise would be used.

The image shows, HPs are economical down to about 13 F, then propane, etc., becomes more economical; much depends on the prices of electricity and propane.



BTW, all of the above has been known for many years, in and out of government.


Ground Source HPs


They are widely used in many different buildings in northern Europe, such as Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland.


Their main advantage is the COP does not decrease with temperature, because the ground temperature is constant

GSHPs can economically displace 100% of fuel.

HPs can economically displace at most 50% of fuel; the percentage depends on how well a building is sealed and insulated.


The main disadvantage of GSHPs is greater turnkey capital cost, i.e., high amortization cost. See URL



NOTE: It is completely inane for RE folks to mindlessly repeat:


"Vermonters must have 25,000 HPs, by so and so year, to save the climate, even though it is required by the off-the-charts nutty GWSA act, and the grandiose Comprehensive Energy Plan.

The GWSA should be scrapped, and the CEP should be rewritten along realistic lines.

In the World-CO2 picture, Vermont is just a dot at the end of this sentence.



Heat Pump Evaluation in Vermont by VT-DPS


VT-Department of Public Service found, after a survey of 77 HPs installed in Vermont houses:


- The annual energy cost savings were, on average, $200, but the maintenance and annual amortizing costs would turn that gain into a loss of at least $200.


- On average, the HPs provided 27.6% of the annual space heat, and traditional fuels provided 72.4%. These numbers are directly from the CADMUS report.


- Owners started to turn off their HPs at about 28F, and very few owners were using their HPs at 10F and below, as shown by the decreasing kWh consumption totals on figure 14 of URL



- On average, an HP consumed 2,085 kWh during the heating season, of which:


1) To outdoor unit (compressor, outdoor fan, controls) + indoor air handling unit (fan and supplemental electric heater, if used) to provide heat 1,880 kWh;

2) Standby mode 76 kWh, or 100 x 76/2085 = 3.6%;

3) Defrost mode 129 kWh, or 100 x 129/2085 = 6.2%. Defrost starts at about 37F and ends at about 10F.


- Turnkey cost for a one-head HP system is about $4,500; almost all houses had just one HP. See URLs.


On average, these houses were unsuitable for HPs, and the owners were losing money.



NOTE: Coefficient of Performance, COP = heat delivered to house/electrical energy to HP

See page 10 of URL



Displaced Fuel Percentage of Vermont Heat Pumps, based on survey


As a result of a few years of complaints by various HP users, mainly about energy cost savings being much less than stated on various websites, VT-DPS was ordered by the Legislature to hire a consultant to perform a survey. CADMUS gathered the operating data of 77 HPs at 65 sites, to determine annual energy cost savings of the heat pumps.


CADMUS calculated:


- Space heat to all sites was 65 x 92 million Btu/site = 5,980 million Btu from all fuels. See URL, page 22

- Heat from HPs was 77 x 21.4 million Btu/HP = 1,648 million Btu. See URL, page 21

- Traditional systems provided 5980 – 1648 = 4,332 million Btu, or 4332/5980 = 72.4% of the total space heat.



The energy cost savings were an average of about $200/HP per year, instead of the $1,200/y to $1,800/y bandied about by RE folks and GMP, VT-DPS, VPIRG, etc. After the CADMUS report, those estimates disappeared from booster websites. See URLs.





Table 4/Space heat, per CADMUS


Million Btu/site

 Million Btu


Heat to sites




 See URL, page 22


 Million Btu/HP


Heat from HPs






See URL, page 21

Heat from traditional





Million Btu/site


Heat from HPs, on average




Heat from traditional, on average

92.00 – 25.35 = 66.65











The EPA Proscribes Two Methods for Calculating the CO2 Per Kilowatt-hour



Method 1 is “location-based”. It is based on physical conditions, i.e., science-based

The CO2 of each electric power source on an electric grid is calculated, based on fuel consumption.

This method is used by the Independent Systems Operator of New England, ISO-NE.


Method 2 is “market-based” It has nothing to do with physical conditions.

The CO2 of each electric power source on an electric grid is calculated, based on EPA emission factors applicable to the electricity of commercial contracts. See page 3 of epa.gov URL

This method is used by the Vermont Department of Public Service.


Per international convention, the EPA declared wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, biomass (i.e., wood chip burning), farm methane, etc., as having zero CO2 emissions, for bookkeeping purposes. 


NOTE: Electricity travels, as electromagnetic waves, at slightly less than the speed of light, i.e., almost 1860 mile in 0.01 second, i.e., from northern Maine to southern Florida in 0.01 second! The electrons largely vibrate in place at 60 cycles per second.


It is nonsense for RE folks to talk of the “Vermont Energy mix”, or the “New Hampshire energy mix”, or to use a “paper PPA energy mix”. These fictitious mixes have no physical basis.


BTW, if electricity did not travel that fast, the operation of electric grids would be physically impossible.




Method 1, Location-Based


NE Grid CO2 Emissions, as calculated by ISO-NE


In 2019, about 82% of electricity loaded onto the NE grid was generated in NE, and 18% was imported. See Note and table in epa URL


The ISO-NE-calculated CO2 emissions for 2019 = (30.997 million US ton, see iso-ne emissions URL x 2000lb/US ton x 454 g/lb)/ (97,853,000 MWh, NE generation, per epa URL) x 1000 kWh/MWh) = 288 g/kWh, fed-to-grid basis, or 288/0.908 = 317 g/kWh, fed-to-user-meter basis, i.e., consumption based, if total grid loss = 2.5%, NE grid + 6.7%, distribution grids = 9.2%.


The grid CO2/kWh will be slowly decreasing as more low-CO2 electricity generators, such as wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, biomass (i.e., wood chip burning), farm methane, etc., are added to the electricity mix of the NE grid. 





NOTE: Since 2004, lower-priced electricity has been imported to serve NE demand; much of it is Canadian hydropower. The CO2 of the imports does not count toward NE grid emissions, by convention, because that CO2 is assumed to be counted in the “jurisdiction of origin”. See URL



Method 2, Market-Based


Vermont Electrical Sector CO2 Emissionsas calculated by VT-DPS


VT-DPS, without providing any calculations, announced the CO2 emissions of the VT electrical sector were 1,000,000; 810,000; 490,000; 190,000; and 130,000 metric ton, for 2015 through 2019.

See page 36 of URL



The VT-DPS emissions were almost entirely “market-based”, i.e., based on EPA emission factors applicable to the electricity of power purchase agreements, PPAs


VT utilities are legally required to have PPAs with the owners of in-state and out-of-state electricity producers  


If VT utilities did not have such PPAs, they would be drawing electricity from the NE grid without contracts, which is the legal equivalent of stealing!


Physically, VT utilities draw about 95% of their annual 6.0 billion electricity supply from the NE high voltage grid, i.e., they draw the mix of the NE grid.

The remaining 5% is fed to utility-owned distribution grids, such as rooftop solar. See Note


Because of losses, about 5.6 billion kWh/y arrives at user meters, a distribution loss of about 100 x (1- 5.6/6.0) = 6.7%


VT-DPS-calculated CO2 emissions for 2019 = 130,000 Mt/y / 5.6 billion kWh/y = 23 g CO2/kWh, fed-to-user-meter basis, i.e., consumption based, or only 100 x {1 - (1 - 23/317)} = 7.3% of the ISO-NE value.


Comments on Image


The below graph of the VT electric sector (blue) has been deceptive for many years


VT Location-based CO2, in 2019, was about 5.6 billion x 317 g/kWh = 1,773,918 Mt, per ISO-NE fuel data.  


VT Market-based CO2, in 2019, was about 130,000 Mt, per PPAs.


The market-based method enabled GMP to proclaim itself to be 95% CO2-free, without spending one dime, because it signed PPAs for wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, biomass (i.e., wood chip burning), farm methane, etc., which are designated as having zero CO2 emissions, per international convention.




Views: 650


You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!

Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine

Comment by Thinklike A. Mountain on September 18, 2021 at 8:26pm

Comment by Willem Post on September 18, 2021 at 3:39pm


Thank for the compliment, and for spreading the article to your contacts.

I continue to make refinements, as time goes by.

Comment by Willem Post on September 18, 2021 at 8:45am

Hi Nancy,

I have added the URL to my article. 

I wonder what could happen during rush our traffic, or in a parking garage, or at a shopping mall, etc.

THETFORD; July 2, 2021 — A fire destroyed a 2019 Chevy Bolt, 66 kWh battery, EPA range 238 miles, owned by state Rep. Tim Briglin, D-Thetford, Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Technology.


He had been driving back and forth from Thetford, VT, to Montpelier, VT, with his EV, about 100 miles via I-89

He had parked his 2019 Chevy Bolt on the driveway, throughout the winter, per GM recall of Chevy Bolts

He had plugged his EV into a 240-volt charger.

The battery was at about 10% charge at start of charging, at 8 PM, and he had charged it to 100% charge at 4 AM; 8 hours of charging. See Note


Li-ions (pos.) would plate out on the cathode (neg) each time when charging from 80 to 100%.

Li-ions would plate out on the anode (pos) each time when charging from 10% to 20%, especially when such charging occurred at battery temperatures of 32F or less.


Fire: Firefighters were called to Briglin’s Tucker Hill Road home around 9 AM Thursday.

Investigators from the Vermont Department of Public Safety Fire and Explosion Investigation Unit determined:


1) The fire started in a compartment in the back of the passenger’s side of the vehicle

2) It was likely due to an “electrical failure”.






GM Recall of Chevy Bolts: In 2020, GM issued a worldwide recall of 68,667 Chevy Bolts, all 2017, 2018 and 2019 models, plus, in 2021, a recall for another 73,000 Bolts, all 2020, 2021, and 2022 models.

GM set aside $1.8 BILLION to replace battery modules, or 1.8 BILLION/(68,667 + 73,000) = $12,706/EV.





Owners were advised not to charge them in a garage, and not to leave them unattended while charging, which may take up to 8 hours; what a nuisance!

I wonder what could happen during rush our traffic, or in a parking garage, or at a shopping mall, etc.

Rep. Briglin heeded the GM recall by not charging in his garage. See URLs




- Cost of replacing the battery packs of 80,000 Hyundai Konas was estimated at $900 million, about $11,000 per vehicle


- EV batteries should be charged from 20 to 80%, to achieve minimal degradation and long life, plus the charging loss is minimal in that range

- Charging EVs from 0 to 20% charge, and from 80 to 100% charge, 1) uses more kWh AC from the wall outlet per kWh DC charged into the battery, and 2) is detrimental to the battery. Also, it requires additional kWh for cooling the battery while charging.

- EV batteries must never be charged, when the battery temperature is less than 32F; if charged anyway, the plating out of Li-ions on the anode would permanently damage the battery.



See section Charging Electric Vehicles During Freezing Conditions in URL


Comment by Willem Post on September 18, 2021 at 8:33am


A small capacity heat pump is used on Tesla EVs to provide for cabin and battery heating and cooling.

It has a patented, eight-way valve, which enables more loops to be "in-play", instead of the 4-way valve used on other EVs with heat pumps. The ranges of Teslas were increased, as a result.

Comment by Nancy Sosman on September 18, 2021 at 5:15am


GM has just advised owners of the Chevy Bolt electric car to park the thing at least 50 feet away from other cars, so as to avoid burning them to cinders – along with the auto-igniting Bolt.

Comment by Willem Post on September 17, 2021 at 10:38pm


There is a lot of misinformation out there regarding HPs, propagated by HP hucksters, i.e., career bureaucrats, who want to use Global Warming as a long-term pathway towards retirement and pensions, etc.

All keep on spouting the same talking points to reinforce the story, which they know to be untrue, because I have emailed my articles to them for at least 15 years.

Then, there are the HP installers, who arrive at your door to "assess your HP needs", with the latest/fanciest, crew-cab, pick-up trucks, $50,000 and up.

They charge extra, because it is a sellers market, and because of hyping and mandates, and they are "certified" by Vermont Energy Efficiency.

They are laughing all the way to the bank.

In the meantime, non-technical lay folks and most Legislators do not have enough information to make buying and legislative decisions.

In fact, most legislators are in cahoots with the hucksters and hypers, shower them with subsidies, etc., because that gets them re-elected.

Comment by Kenneth Capron on September 17, 2021 at 4:57pm

Anyone know what the smallest HP is? 
Or equivalent that I can put in a 4px gondola for heating and cooling?

Comment by Kenneth Capron on September 17, 2021 at 4:18pm

"there's only one solution: global government" - could also be a ruse to get us to buy more guns and bullets.

I'm going to run for Governor. Enough of this crap. Just close the doors behind you ....

Comment by Thinklike A. Mountain on September 17, 2021 at 3:44pm

In my opinion, manmade climate change is a ruse as are most of the remedies like wind, solar and hype for heat pumps in cold climates. Notice the word global is found in both globalism and global warming. It is all driven by globalists who want to be big fish in a big pond, the world. The hell with national sovereignty. Their scams are thus based on ideas for which national boundaries are meaningless such as CO2, Covid, terrorists, unlimited illegal migration, etc. When a threat knows no national boundaries, there's only one solution: global government. These people are more than dishonest. They are evil. Here in the U.S., the Democrat party is the more infected but a huge number of Republicans are also on board with destroying the U.S. and ushering in a new world order. The Bush crime family is a good example.

Comment by Kenneth Capron on September 17, 2021 at 1:07pm

Is everything related to GHG a ruse? In every instance whether wind, solar, HP etc, there is a scam underlying - a government funded scam. Must be a legal action that could be brought if the Judicial system were reliable. 


Maine as Third World Country:

CMP Transmission Rate Skyrockets 19.6% Due to Wind Power


Click here to read how the Maine ratepayer has been sold down the river by the Angus King cabal.

Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting – Three Part Series: A CRITICAL LOOK AT MAINE’S WIND ACT


(excerpts) From Part 1 – On Maine’s Wind Law “Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met." . – Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, August 2010 https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/From Part 2 – On Wind and Oil Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation. And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, says Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating – if they did, we’d be in trouble.” So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?" https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-swept-task-force-set-the-rules/From Part 3 – On Wind-Required New Transmission Lines Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine – oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines – that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.” https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/flaws-in-bill-like-skating-with-dull-skates/

Not yet a member?

Sign up today and lend your voice and presence to the steadily rising tide that will soon sweep the scourge of useless and wretched turbines from our beloved Maine countryside. For many of us, our little pieces of paradise have been hard won. Did the carpetbaggers think they could simply steal them from us?

We have the facts on our side. We have the truth on our side. All we need now is YOU.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

 -- Mahatma Gandhi

"It's not whether you get knocked down: it's whether you get up."
Vince Lombardi 

Task Force membership is free. Please sign up today!

Hannah Pingree on the Maine expedited wind law

Hannah Pingree - Director of Maine's Office of Innovation and the Future

"Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine."


© 2022   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service