VERMONT’S GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS ACT, A DISASTER IN THE MAKING

Vermont has a Comprehensive Energy Plan, CEP. The capital cost for implementing the CEP would be in excess of $1.0 billion/y from 2017 to 2050, 33 years, as stated in Energy Action Network annual report for 2015.

 

It would take $1.25 billion/y from 2022 to 2050, 28 years, and probable much more to overcome the Biden 5 to 6 percent inflation. See URLs.

 

Excluded are financing and replacements of short-life systems, such as EVs (10y), heat pumps (15y), battery systems (15y), etc.

 

http://eanvt.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/EAN-2015-Annual-Report-... 

https://outside.vermont.gov/sov/webservices/Shared%20Documents/2016...

 

Vermont Gross Emissions

 

9.04 MMt in 2012

10.19 MMt in 2015

9.76 MMt in 2016

9.41 MMt in 2017, estimated

9.02 MMt in 2018, estimated

 

The decrease from 2015 is almost entirely due to the VT-DPS using an artificial/political basis, i.e., not a physical basis, for calculating the CO2 of the Vermont electrical sector. That basis is MARKET BASED, i.e., based on “paper” power purchase agreements, PPAs, utilities have with owners of in-state and out-of-state electricity generating plants. It is explained in detail in this article.

 

See figs. 1 and 16 of URL

https://dec.vermont.gov/sites/dec/files/aqc/climate-change/document...

 

See page 18 of URL

https://dec.vermont.gov/sites/dec/files/aqc/climate-change/document...

 

US Gross Emissions were about 6,700 MMt in 2018

Vermont emissions are just a tiny fraction of US emissions.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions

CEP GROSS EMISSION REDUCTIONS AND COSTS; THREE PHASES

 

GWSA essentially is a big stick, wielded in a threatening manner, by Vermont’s RE interests, to hit Vermonters over the head to cough up lots of money out of their empty pockets, to implement the CEP, including highly subsidized wind and solar systems that produce expensive, weather-dependent, seasonal electricity, that would do nothing regarding climate change.  

 

CEP Financial Implications

 

Very few legislators have any idea how much it will cost to MANDATE the implementation of the VT Comprehensive Energy Plan.

 

The below CO2 emissions reductions for Phases 1, 2, and 3 are based on the VT-CEP goals, as mandated by GWSA.

 

Phase 1

 

The CEP mandate:

 

Reduce CO2 from 10.22 MMt, at end 2005 to 7.46 MMt, by Jan. 1, 2025, or 2.76 MMt, to “meet Paris”.

 

The Council would take about a year to develop plans, which means most of 2021 would have elapsed before any action.

 

EAN Plan:

 

Reduce CO2 from 9.76 MMt, at end 2016, to 7.46 MMt, by Jan. 1, 2025, or 2.30 MMt, to “meet Paris”

 

This article:

 

Reduce CO2 from 9.02 MMt, at end 2018 (latest numbers) to 7.46 MMt, by Jan 1, 2025, or 1.56 MMt, to “meet Paris” 

This would take place during the years 2022, 2023, and 2024, effectively a 3-y period.

The turnkey capital cost would be about 1.56/2.30 x 13.70 = $9.29 billion, or $3.10 BILLION/y. See table 1A

 

Currently, Vermonters, and the VT and federal governments, spend about $200 MILLION/y, on heat pumps, electric vehicles, insulation/sealing, solar systems, wind turbine systems, grid extension/augmentation, battery systems, etc.      

 

Reducing such a large quantity of CO2, requires ramping up electricity generating capacity, MW, and implementing energy reduction measures, during 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024.

 

Vermont would not be able to spend $3.10 BILLION/y for 3 years, i.e., the required resources far exceed what is available to Vermont.

 

Mandating such build-outs, because of GWSA, would be far beyond rational.

Any rational engineer at the VT-DPS would agree in private, but likely would not publicly, because he would be ostracized, or out of a job.

 

Table 1A/EAN plan		CEP Mandate		This article
Year	MMt/y	Year	MMt	Year	MMt
End 2016	9.76	End 2015	10.22	End 2018	9.02
Start 2025	7.46	Start 2025	7.46	Start 2025	7.46
Reduction	2.30		2.76		1.56
Reduction, %	23.6		27.0		17.3
CAPEX, billion	13.7				9.29

Phase 2

40%+ below 1990, i.e., (1 - 0.40) x 8.59 = 5.15 MMt, by Jan. 1, 2030

The CO2 reduction would be 7.46, Jan 1, 2025 - 5.15, Jan. 1, 2030 = 2.31 MMt, during the 5-y period 

No capital cost estimate was made by me, or anyone else.

 

Phase 3

80%+ below 1990, i.e., (1 - 0.80) x 8.59 = 1.72 MMt, by January 1, 2050

The CO2 reduction would be 5.15, Jan. 1, 2030 - 1.72, Jan. 1 2050 = 3.43 MMt, during the 20-y period

No capital cost estimate was made by me, or anyone else.

EAN MEASURES TO MEET PARIS BY 2025

In general, almost all people have not a clue regarding how much it would cost to “meet Paris by 2025”.

Luckily, EAN has a plan, but did not provide a capital cost. See URL.

https://www.eanvt.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/EAN-report-2020-fi...

 

Luckily, I have about 40 years of experience estimating the cost of energy systems, so I prepared an estimate of the capital expenditures, CAPEX.

 

Based on my experience, I judge EAN’s measures to “meet Paris by 2025” a complete fantasy.

 

However, such fantasies are accepted by VT Legislators, who likely know next to nothing about energy systems, and by the GWSA Climate Directorate Committee of 23.

Here is a list of EAN measures to “meet Paris by 2025”.

 

1) EAN wants to have on the road 90,000 additional EVs, at a cost of $3.6 billion, plus chargers, at a cost of $0.18 billion, to reduce CO2. If the CO2 analysis would be on an A-to-Z basis, 190,141 EVs would be required, at a cost of $7.61 billion, plus chargers, at a cost of $0.38 billion.

 

2) EAN wants to perform 90,000 deep retrofits of houses, at a cost of $2.7 billion; regular weatherization of average Vermont houses, at $10,000, is grossly inadequate.

 

3) EAN wants to install 90,000 air source heat pumps for space heating in the 90,000 upgraded houses, at a cost of $0.45 billion to reduce CO2. If the CO2 analysis is were on an A-to-Z basis, 139,385 ASHPs would be required, at a cost of $0.7 billion

 

4) EAN wants to install 90,000 ASHPs for domestic hot water in the 90,000 upgraded houses, at a cost of $0.27 billion

 

5) EAN wants to increase wind turbines on pristine ridgelines, at a cost of $0.10 billion

6) EAN wants to increase solar systems from 438.84 MW of panels at end 2019 to 1000 MW of panels, at a cost of $0.57 billion

7) EAN wants to increase grid expansion/augmentation, at a cost of $0.1 billion

8) EAN wants to install battery systems at a cost of $0.9 billion, and pay solar system owners $0.3 billion for curtailments, as part of managing midday Duck-curves, per “Fortress Vermont”.

9) EAN wants to increase in-state hydropower, at a cost of $0.09 billion

CAPEX Summary

 

Total CAPEX would be $9.25 billion, of which short-life systems would be $5.7 billion, if analysis is on EAN basis.

 

Total CAPEX would be $13.7 billion, of which short-life systems would be $10.15 billion, if analysis is on an A-to-Z basis.

 

All that from January 1, 2020, to January 1, 2025, 5 years, to meet Paris, per EAN, as mandated by GWSA to implement the VT-CEP!

EXPLANATION OF TURNKEY CAPITAL COSTS OF PHASE 1

 

The EAN analysis was based on favorable artificial/political assumptions, which caused a gross overstatement of the CO2 reduction of electric vehicles and heat pumps.

 

As a result, many more EVs and HPs would be required to achieve the EAN CO2 reductions.

A realistic turnkey capital cost would be about $13.70 billion. See table 1

 

Because the CO2 reduction of Phase 1 is “only” 1.56 MMT, the turnkey capital cost of Phase 1 (using the EAN plan as a basis, and using realistic assumptions) would be about 1.56/2.28 x $13.70 billion = $9.25 billion.

 

See below explanation (items 1, 2, 3, and 4), and notes, and URL.

https://www.eanvt.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/EAN-report-2020-fi...

 

1) Electricity: EAN used an artificial/political value of 34 g CO2/kWh, at wall outlet, based on “paper” power purchase agreements utilities have with owners of wind, solar, hydro and nuclear plants, instead of 276 g CO2/kWh, the NE grid CO2, adjusted downward for low-CO2 imports from nearby grids.

 

The NE grid CO2 value is based on the physical consumption of fuel by NE generating plants, as determined by ISO-NE.

Utilities physically draw almost all of their electricity supply from the NE grid.

 

Electricity moves on the grid as electro-magnetic waves, at near the speed of light, i.e., 1800 miles in 0.01 second.

There is no such thing as Vermont CO2, New Hampshire CO2, etc. Those are artificial/political constructs.

See tables 2 and 3 in Appendix

 

2) Mileage: EAN used 22.7 mpg, EPA combined, in 2018. See pg. 4 of URL
That is the average of ALL vehicles registered in Vermont.

That would include all types of 1) gasoline vehicles, 2) diesel vehicles, including large and small trucks, 3) RVs, and other on-the-road vehicles.

EVs usually replace higher mileage vehicles, i.e., greater than 30 mpg, EPA combined. See notes.

https://www.eanvt.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/EAN-report-2020-fi...

 

3) EAN Analysis

Did not consider upstream CO2 for heat pumps and electric vehicle analysis

Did not consider embodied CO2 of electric vehicles

 

4) EAN-calculated Annual Savings

Did not consider annual service calls and spare parts of heat pumps, which reduce overall cost savings

Did not consider the amortizing cost of the short-life assets. Additional capital cost would be required to replace them.

Did not consider the amortizing cost of the long-life assets

 

NOTE: People who drive higher-mileage vehicles, say greater than 30 mpg, EPA combined, are likely to buy EVs or plug-hybrids, such as a 54-mpg Prius.

EAN using 22.7 mpg, instead of at least 30 mpg, would make EVs look better, regarding CO2 emissions.
It is a form of hyping EVs, not obvious to lay people/legislators.

 

NOTE:

See fig ES-1 of URL

https://legislature.vermont.gov/assets/Legislative-Reports/Feebate-...

 

1) Figure ES-1 shows about 80% of Vermonters purchased lower-mileage vehicles, i.e., less than 30 mpg, EPA combined, during 2016, 2017, and 2018.

Those vehicles (such as SUVs, crossovers, ¼-ton pick-ups) usually have all-wheel-drive or 4-wheel drive.

They are most useful to Vermonters, especially during winter conditions.

 

2) Figure ES-1 shows about 20% of Vermonters purchased higher-mileage vehicles., i.e., greater than 30 mpg, EPA combined, during 2016, 2017, and 2018.

Those few, eco-conscious, Vermonters are likely candidates for replacing their higher-mileage vehicles with EVs.

EV adoption likely is “not taking off”, because the EVs being marketed are: 1) too expensive, if they have larger batteries, 2) lose up to 40% of range during cold weather, and 3) are unsuitable/insufficient for Vermonters’ needs and Vermont road/climate conditions.

NOTE: The current EVs being marketed definitely cannot economically replace the IC vehicles that Vermonters prefer/need to drive, because of conditions.

Eco-conscious owners of IC vehicles, with 30 mpg or higher EPA combined, are the people who buy EVs.

About 50% of EV buyers are eco-conscious enough to also have solar panels.

A high tax to force people with IC vehicles to abandon their preferred vehicles, would be an imposition.

EAN CO2 REDUCTION PLAN AND TURNKEY CAPIAL COST FOR  2020 – 2025, TO “MEET PARIS”

 

1) EAN has a plan to reduce CO2 from 9.76 MMt, in 2016 to 7.46 MMt, by January1, 2025, a reduction of 2.28 MMt, at a capital cost of about $13.70 BILLION, to "meet Paris"

https://www.eanvt.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/EAN-report-2020-fi...

 

2) The CEP has a GWSA-mandated goal to reduce CO2 from 10.22 MMt in 2005 to 7.46 MMt, by January 1, 2025, to "meet Paris".

 

The actual CO2 reduction would be from 9.02 MMt, at end 2018 (latest numbers) to 7.46 MMt, Jan. 1, 2025, or 1.56 MMt, during 2022, 2023, and 2024, effectively a 3-y period, at a capital cost about 1.56/2.28 x 13.70 = $9.37 billion, or $3.12 BILLION/y 

 

The CO2 reduction appears to be a physical and financial impossibility.

 

3) However, the EAN analysis is based on flawed assumptions, as explained in this article

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-s-global-warmi...

 

EAN listed the measures required to reduce CO2 from 9.76, in 2016 to 7.46, in 2025, reduction of 2.28 MMt.

EAN proclaimed $800 million in savings over the 5-y period, i.e., $160 million/y.

EAN did not show detailed calculations of these savings

 

TURNKEY CAPITAL COST OF EAN PLAN, BASED ON FLAWED ASSUMPTIONS

 

I made a turnkey capital cost estimate of the EAN plan, because EAN did not, but should have.

 

Adding 90,000 EVs x $40000/small EV = $3.6 billion; installation rate 18000/y vs about 750/y, at present

In-house fast chargers: 90,000 x $2000 = $0.18 billion

 

Adding 90,000 “Deep” retrofits x $30,000/housing unit = $2.7 billion

Adding 90,000 ASHPs (space heat) x $5,000/housing unit = $0.45 billion; installation rate 18000/y vs about 2900/y, at present

Adding 90,000 ASHPs (DHW) x $3,000/system = $0.27 billion; installation rate 18000/y vs about 1000/y, at present 

 

Adding wind turbines: 250000/(8766 x 0.30) x $2.5 million/MW = $0.095 Billion

Adding solar systems: 700000/(8766 x 0.14) x $3.5 million/MW = $0.57 Billion

Expanding/augmenting the grid: $0.1 billion

Implementing the $1.3 billion "Fortress Vermont" to deal with excessive DUCK-curves, due to midday solar surges; energy storage: $0.9 billion; curtailment payments: $0.3 billion

 

Adding hydro power plants: 50000/(8766 x 0.40) x $6 million/MW = $0.086 billion

 

The turnkey capital cost would be exceeding $9.25 billion, during 2020 – 2025, about $1.85 billion/y.

 

4) TURNKEY CAPITAL COST OF EAN PLAN, BASED ON REALISTIC ASSUMPTIONS

 

Turnkey capital cost would be about $13.70 BILLION, which would be spent during 2022, 2023, 2024, to have the GWSA-mandated CO2 reductions by January 1, 2025

EAN SOLAR BUILD-OUT TO MEET “PARIS”

 

The EAN solar build-out, to “meet Paris” would be from 438.84 MW dc, at end 2019 to at least 1000 MW dc, at end 2025

 

Cost Shifting to Ratepayers: Current cost shifting to ratepayers for solar production of 473,686 MWh, at end 2019, was about $64 million.

The cost shifting would become about $130 million, if solar production were increased by 700,000 MWh during the 2020 – 2025 period, per EAN plan. See table 4 in URL and Appendix

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-global-warming-sol...

 

The increased solar would cause much larger, grid-disturbing, midday DUCK-curves.

See VELCO graph in URL

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-vagaries-of-solar-...

 

Managing DUCK-curves costs money. The costs, about 1.1 c/kWh, are charged to ratepayers

The costs would be much higher, 20 c/kWh, if battery systems, with about 15-y lives, were involved.

Batteries have a loss of 20% of any electricity passing through them, on a high-voltage to high-voltage basis.

 

Solar requires significant grid extension/augmentation. The costs, about 1.0 c/kWh, are charged to ratepayers

 

Solar Requires Large Land Areas: A 2.2 MW system requires about 10 acres

It would have an output of about 2.2 x 8766 x 0.145 = 2,796 MWh of weather-dependent, season-dependent, variable electricity, with daily DUCK-curves.

 

The EAN solar build-out would require 700000/2796 = 250 of such systems on 2,500 acres spread-out all over Vermont, at end 2025.

The turnkey capital cost would be 250 x 2.2 x 3.5 million/MW = $1.928 BILLION.

The systems would last about 25 years.

 

Solar is the most expensive electricity on the Vermont grid.

Build-outs of solar benefit mostly Chinese companies.

It would not be smart policy to have more of it.

 

Solar Compared with a Gas-Turbine Power Plant

 

- A 500-MW, combined-cycle, 60%-efficient, gas plant would require only 10 acres

- It would have an output of about 500 x 8766 x 0.80 = 3,506,400 MWh of steady electricity, 24/7/365, that is not weather-dependent, not season-dependent.

- The capital cost would be about $500 million.

- The plant would last about 40 years.

- The output would be about 1,254 times greater from the same land area, i.e., about 12,540 acres of solar panels, located all over Vermont, would be required to equal the electricity production of one 500 MW CCGT plant.

- The CO2 related to: 1) making the solar systems and installing them, 2) disturbing the ground, 3) augmenting/extending the grid, and 4) dealing with DUCK-curves, would be enormous.

 

NOTE: NE grid wholesale prices have been about 5 c/kWh starting in 2009, courtesy of low-cost, clean-burning, low-CO2 gas, and near-CO2-free nuclear.

 

NOTE: GMP buys nuclear from the Seabrook Nuclear plant to artificially/politically lower its CO2, on “paper”, without spending a dime to really reduce CO2.

EAN Claimed a CO2 Reduction per EV Much Greater Than in Reality.

 

If EAN had compared EVs with 30-mpg vehicles, the CO2 reduction would be about 2.13 Mt/y, much less than the 4.50 Mt/y claimed by the artificial/political EAN method.
EAN used 22.7 mpg, EPA combined, the average of ALL registered vehicles!

EAN used a CO2/kWh at least 8 times less than the NE grid, to make EVs look better than other vehicles, regarding CO2 emissions!

With such assumptions, anything can be made to look good to lay people

The average Vermont person/legislator likely would not be able to determine any EAN analysis flaws.

 

For realism, EAN should have used my 2019 Subaru Outback, which averages 32 mpg in summer and 29 mpg in winter; has vastly more storage capacity than a medium-size EV, which costs 1.5 to 2 times as much as my Subaru.

 

EAN would need 90000 x 4.50/2.13 = 190,141 EVs to achieve its CO2 reduction of 0.405 MMt/y, at end 2025

Many more people would need to be driving EVs, which would require more capital cost. See table 1A

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-co2-reduction-o...

 

EAN Claimed a CO2 Reduction per ASHP Much Greater Than in Reality.

 

ASHPs, in average Vermont 2000 ft2 houses, have a CO2 reduction of about 2.389 Mt/y per ASHP, much less than the 4.111 Mt/y per ASHP claimed by the artificial/political EAN method.

 

EAN would need 90000 x 4.111/2.389 = 139,385 ASHPs to achieve its CO2 reduction of 0.37 MMt/y, in 2025

Much more ASHP capacity would be needed at each site, which would require much more capital cost. See table 1A 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-co2-reduction-o...

 

NOTE: The EAN-claimed energy cost savings per heat pump and per EV were overstated, as confirmed by the CADMUS survey

https://publicservice.vermont.gov/sites/dps/files/documents/2017%20...

 

NOTE: Additional explanation is in this URL, which also shows turnkey capital cost estimates:

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/response-to-energy-acti...

 

Likely Intensions of EAN Analysis

 

EAN performed the flawed analysis likely to:

 

- Bamboozle legislators to get them to vote for GWSA (“all we need is this and that, and we will get these fabulous results”)

- Bamboozle/befuddle most of the rest of Vermonters, who would:

 

1) Be suffering GWSA-induced financial pains for decades to come

2) Experience no discernible effect on the Vermont climate…. 

3) The GWSA council in California recently banned the sale of all new gasoline vehicles in California starting in 2035.

Will the GWSA council in Vermont follow suit?

 

Amortizing Short-Life Items

 

Short-life Items: EVs, heat pumps, battery storage systems, etc., have lives of less than 15 years. 

Amortizing the cost of the short-life items, $5.7 billion, at 3.5% over 15 years (see table 1), would require payments of $489 million/y for 15 years, more than offsetting the EAN estimated energy cost savings of 800/5 = $160 million/y, during the 2020 – 2025 period.

https://www.myamortizationchart.com

 

NOTE: Vermont’s existing RE spending is about $210 million/y, including about $55 million for Efficiency Vermont. 

The additional spending, during 2020 – 2025, would be about 489 – 160 = $329 million/y, per EAN plan

Annual costs would be even higher, because the amortizing of longer-life items was not considered.

https://www.eanvt.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/EAN-report-2020-fi...

Table 1	EAN PLAN					EAN PLAN
Capital Cost Estimate	FLAWED					REALISTIC
		$	$Billion	$Billion			$	$Billion	$Billion
				Short Life					Short Life
EVs	90000	40000	3.60	3.60		190141	40000	7.61	7.61
Chargers	90000	2000	0.18	0.18		190141	2000	0.38	0.38
Deep retrofit	90000	30000	2.70			90000	30000	2.70
ASHPs, space heat	90000	5000	0.45	0.45		139385	5000	0.70	0.70
ASHPs, DHW	90000	3000	0.27	0.27		90000	3000	0.27	0.27
Wind turbines			0.10					0.10
Solar systems			0.57					0.57
Grid expansion/augmentation			0.10					0.10
Energy storage			0.90	0.90				0.90	0.90
Curtailment payments			0.30	0.30				0.30	0.30
Hydro power			0.09					0.09
Total turnkey capital cost			9.25	5.70				13.70	10.15
Years			5.00	5.00				5.00	5.00
Cost/y			1.85	1.14				2.74	2.03

RATIONAL ALTERNATIVE FOR VERMONT INSTEAD OF GWSA

 

California: California has had a GWSA law since 2006, which resulted in:

 

- Rapid increases of electric rates and gasoline prices

- Huge DUCK-curves, due to midday solar electricity surges

- Unwise/untimely/political/ideological shutdown of gas plants, which resulted in rolling blackouts, when, during a multi-day heat wave, solar disappearing in late-afternoon/early-evening (DURING PEAK HOURS), and not reappearing until mid-morning THE NEXT DAY, while all that time wind was minimal.

- A host of rules, regulations, taxes, fees and surcharges, and penalties to enforce behavior modification programs

 

With high levels of weather-dependent wind and solar, huge storage (multiple TWh) would be required.

That storage would cost several trillion dollars, if materials could be found to build such capacity. It would need to cover:

 

1) Single and multi-day heat waves over large areas

2) Multi-day wind/solar lulls throughout the year, as frequently occur in New England

3) Short-term and seasonal variations.

 

The ADDITIONAL environmental impact on millions of acres with wind and solar systems, would be enormous all over the US.

 

It would be much better to build millions of PASSIVHAUS-style buildings all over the US.
They would need only 1/3 the energy of the current energy hogs.

 

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-vagaries-of-solar-...

http://www.truenorthreports.com/welcome-to-hell-says-california-pol...

 

Vermont: For Vermont, the only thing that makes any sense is to stop “emulating” California.

Vermont should immediately scrap GWSA, and concentrate on:

 

1) Energy conservation
2) Energy efficiency
3) Building net-zero-energy, and energy-surplus houses and other buildings, by the thousands, each year. See Appendix
4) Provide incentives to buy vehicles that get more than 35 mpg, EPA combined; the more above the limit, the greater the incentive.

5) Charge annual fees, paid at time of registration, on existing and new vehicles that get less than 25 mpg, EPA combined; the more below the limit, the greater the fee.

 

The above 4 items would save money for Vermonters, and make the state economy more competitive

Most of the other energy measures are just expensively subsidized hogwash and behavior modifications that would not make one iota of difference regarding climate change.

 

APPENDIX 1

GWSA and 23-MEMBER COUNCIL

 

GSWA converts the aspirational goals of the CEP, to mandated goals.

 

In practice, the Council likely would be the sole decider how hundreds of millions of $dollars would be spent, each year, for decades, with no relief ever, because:

 

If mandated goals are not attained, there would be mandated financial penalties, prohibitions (you shall do this; you shall not do that), fees and surcharges. 

 

The “Fight Climate Change” agitators, many of whom would stand to financially gain from the GWSA mandates, have failed to get a carbon tax enacted for five years.

With GWSA, they will get a bonanza beyond their wildest dreams for decades.

They labelled GWSA as “this year’s must-pass legislation”.

 

GSWA has a 23-member Council. The Council make-up would include:

 

1) Eight Government Secretaries and Commissioners

2) Eight members appointed by the Speaker of the House

3) Seven members appointed by the “Committee on Committees”, C of C

The members of the C of C are the Lt Governor, Senate president pro tem, and a “third member” elected by the Senate

See URL

https://legiscan.com/VT/text/H0688/2019

 

The Governor’s Secretary of Administration would be the Chairman.

He/she has the power to call meetings.

If he/she delays calling meetings, any 12 of 23 members could call a meeting.

 

NOTE: The Governor would have only 8 votes, plus may be a few more, but likely not 5, i.e., the Governor could not override the 12 members calling a meeting.

NOTE: The 23-member GWSA Council includes:
Jared Duval, leading member of Energy Action Network
June Tierney, Commissioner of Public Service, and member of EAN

The action sequence would be as follows:

 

Council would approve plans.

VT Agency of Natural Resources, ANR, would write rules to implement plans,

Council would approve rules

Approved rules sent to the Governor’s Interagency Committee on Administrative Rules, ICAR

ICAR is composed of Governor Appointees

ICAR can reject the rules, i.e., the Governor can stop the process.

 

What happens next likely would be lawsuits

Any entity, such as the Conservation Law Foundation, could sue the state, if Council decisions would not reduce CO2 in accordance with GSWA/CEP goals.

 

Legislators and Other Vermonters are Disenfranchised

 

If mandated goals are not attained, there would be mandated financial penalties, prohibitions (you shall do this; you shall not do that), fees and surcharges

If the Council would decide to impose the equivalent of a carbon tax, so be it. 

 

Legislators would not be allowed to vote on any plan, or any proposed rules.

Legislators would not be voting on GWSA-related financial penalties, prohibitions, and increases in fees and surcharges.

Legislators, and the people who voted for them, would be disenfranchised.

Legislators would be “off-the-hook”. 

 

GWSA Likely is Unconstitutional

 

On the face of it, GWSA has to be unconstitutional, because the Governor, and his administration, and Legislators, appear to have no effective say in any Council decisions.

Such extremism could only come about due to the present, veto-proof control by Dem/Progs.

This is Centralized Command and Control by the ruling Dem/Progs. 

It has nothing to do with give and take of Democracy.

 

NOTE: Vermont is "lucky", because it will have the California 14-y, GWSA-experience of rapidly increasing electric rates, and increasing gasoline and heating fuel prices, and rolling brown-outs/black-outs as a guide.

http://www.truenorthreports.com/welcome-to-hell-says-california-pol...

APPENDIX 2

EAN USED ARTIFICIAL/POLITICAL EMISSIONS OF VERMONT ELECTRICAL SECTOR

 

The EAN-CO2 reduction from 9.99 MMt in 2015 to 9.02 MMt in 2018 was “achieved” by basing the CO2 of the Vermont electrical sector on “paper” power purchase agreements, PPAs, utilities have with owners of in-state and out-of-state electricity generating plants.

 

All utilities, which physically draw almost all of their electricity supply from the NE grid, must have such PPAs, per ISO-NE requirements, as otherwise they would be stealing from the grid.

 

EAN/VT-DPS concocted an artificial/political value of 34 g CO2/kWh, based on PPAs, about 8 times less than NE grid CO2/kWh, to “evaluate” the CO2 reduction of heat pumps and electric vehicles to make them look extra good!!! Such deception is sheer chicanery. See and URLs

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-co2-reduction-o...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-co2-reduction-o...

 

Conflict of Interest

 

- The membership of EAN includes ten prominent members of Vermont Department of Public Service, VT-DPS: June Tierney, Riley Allen, Ed McNamara, TJ Poore, Anne Margolis, Andrew Perchlik, Maria Fischer, Phillip Picotte, Ed Delhagen, Kelly Launder.

- June Tierney is the Commissioner.

- Andrew Perchlik is on loan to the Legislature to shepherd the GWSA and $1.2 billion “Fortress Vermont” bills to ensure they contain all the bennies for EAN members.

- Perchlik manages the Clean Energy Development Fund that donates taxpayer money to renewable energy programs.

- No wonder VT-DPS resorts to artificial/political CO2 calculations regarding Vermont’s electrical sector, and EV and ASHP programs.

https://www.eanvt.org/about/people/network-members/

1) VT-DPS Concocting an Artificial/Political CO2/kWh for Vermont, based on PPAs

 

VT-DPS concocted an artificial CO2 emission for the Vermont grid of 34 g/kWh, based onpaper power purchase agreements, PPAs, utilities have with in-state and out-of-state electricity producers.

This concocted value, which has no physical basis, is about 8 times less than the NE grid CO2 value, as determined by ISO-NE.

 

GMP, et al., merely signs some papers, and presto, its electricity is certified green, and has low CO2. 

Break out the champaign. The system has been gamed.

 

All other Vermonters have to bust their chops, and save hard-earned money, because they are mandated to buy heat pumps, EVs, insulate their homes to be "net zero", etc. to be certified green

 

Physically, almost all Vermont electricity is drawn by utilities from high voltage grids. There is absolutely no reason for not using the NE grid CO2 value, other than deliberate deception. See below explanation.

 

2) NE Electric Grid CO2 in 2018, based on Primary Energy

 

ISO-NE uses fuel/energy fed to power plants to calculate CO2/kWh; primary energy basis.

Page 13 of URL shows 658 lb CO2/MWh, or 658 x 454/1000 = 299 g/kWh; PE basis

 

ISO-NE does not include CO2 of upstream energy

Upstream is about 10.2% of PE CO2

https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2020/01/draft_2018_e... 

 

Fed to grid becomes 299 x 1.102 = 329 g CO2/kWh; source energy basis.

Fed to wall meter becomes 323 x 1.102 = 356 g CO2/kWh, SE basis.

 

Imports from Nearby Grids: Imports were 17% of total electricity fed to the NE grid.

 

New York State electric grid CO2 was 464 lb/MWh in 2018, or 211 g/kWh

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/newyork/

 

Quebec electric grid CO2 was 500 g/MWh in 2018, or 0.5 g/kWh

https://www.hydroquebec.com/data/developpement-durable/pdf/co2-emis...

 

I assumed imports has zero g CO2/kWh, which likely understates the real-world conditions.

 

Adjusted for imports 323/1.17 = 276 g/kWh, PE basis

Adjusted for imports 356/1.17 = 304 g/kWh, SE basis

 

Table 2/NE grid for 2018	Grid CO2	Grid CO2
	PE basis	SE basis
	g/kWh	g/kWh
Source energy
Upstream for extract, process, transport, 10.2%
Primary energy = Fed to power plants
Conversion loss
Gross generation
Plant self-use loss
Net generation = Fed to grid	299	329
T&D loss, 7.5%
Fed to wall meters	323	356
Fed to wall meters, adjusted for imports	276	304

3) Vermont Electricity Sector CO2 in 2018

 

Based on Physics, per ISO-NE: Electricity, via a wall socket, would have the NE electricity mix; CO2 of 276 g/kWh, PE basis, in 2018. See table A

  

Fed to Vermont High Voltage Grid: Electricity fed by generators (in-state and out-of-state) into the Vermont high voltage grid is about 6 billion kWh/y

 

Consumption via Wall Outlets: Vermont ratepayer consumption is about 6 x (1 – 0.075, T&D losses) = 5.55 billion kWh/y

 

Solar: Almost all Standard-Offer solar and Utility solar is fed into high voltage grids and instantly becomes part of the NE mix.

Almost all Net-Metered solar, such as rooftop solar, is fed into distribution grids.

 

Wind: The output of all in-state wind plants is fed into high voltage grids

 

McNeal, Ryegate: The output of both plants is fed into high voltage grids and instantly becomes part of the NE mix.

The CO2 of both plants is not counted, because it is from burning trees, which has been ordained by the EPA to be “renewable”.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/burning-wood-is-not-ren...

 

Hydro Plants: Almost all in-state hydro plant output is fed into high voltage grids and instantly becomes part of the NE mix.

 

ISO-NE Values in Table 1A, at outlet: Vermont CO2 would be about 5.55 billion kWh x 276 g/kWh x 1 lb/454 g x 1 Mt/2204.62 lb = 1,530,426 Mt/y, PE basis, in 2018

 

VT-DPS Using PPAs, at wall outlet: CO2 of the “PPA Vermont electricity mix” yields an artificial/political value of 190,000 Mt/y in 2018, or 190000/1530426 x 276 = 34 g/kWh, PE basis, in 2018 

   

See page 18 of Agency of Natural Resources URL for GHG estimates for 2017 and 2018.

The rapid GHG reduction from 2015 to 2018 is miraculous.

It may have to do with GMP buying more out-of-state nuclear and hydro. 

https://dec.vermont.gov/sites/dec/files/aqc/climate-change/document...

4) Vermont Utilities and VT-DPS “Reduce” CO2

 

No CO2 is reduced by GMP and other Vermont utilities signing paper PPAs with electricity generators, in-state or out-of-state.

 

It is unscientific, chicanery for:

 

1) VT-DPS to calculate CO2 of the Vermont electrical sector and CO2/kWh, based on paper PPAs

2) EAN to use those artificial/political numbers to evaluate the CO2 reduction of ASHPs and EVs

https://www.eanvt.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/EAN-report-2020-fi...

   

VT-DPS calculates CO2 of the Vermont electrical sector at 32 g/kWh for 2018, fed to grid basis

ISO-NE calculates CO2 at 299 g/kWh for 2018, fed to grid basis. See URL page 18

 

https://dec.vermont.gov/sites/dec/files/aqc/climate-change/document...

https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2019/04/2017_emissio...

 

Table 3/Grid CO2/Year	1990	2000	2015	2016	2017, est.	2018, est.
VT-DPS, PE basis
Electricity fed to VT grid, GWh	6,000	6,000	6,000	6,000	6,000	6,000
Vermont electrical sector CO2, million Mt	1.09	0.43	1.00	0.81	0.49	0.19
Total CO2, all sectors	8.65	9.70	10.19	9.76	9.41	9.02
CO2, g CO2/kWh, fed to grid basis		72	167	135	82	32
CO2, g CO2/kWh, WM basis		78	180	146	88	34
ISO-NE, PE basis
NE generation, fed to grid, GWh		110,199	107,916	105,570	102,562	103,740
NE grid CO2, lb//MWh, fed to grid basis		726	747	710	682	658
NE grid CO2, g/kWh, fed to grid basis		330	339	322	310	299
NE grid CO2, g/kWh, WM basis		357	366	348	335	323

* Table CO2 values not adjusted for imports

APPENDIX 3

Solar and Wind Complementing Each Other in New England?

 

Solar may be 30% in summer, and 15% in winter, on average

Wind may be 15% in winter, and 30% in winter, on average

Naïve RE people look at this, and conclude solar and wind “nicely complement” each other, which to energy systems analysts is pure nonsense.

How could non-existent solar at night in winter “nicely complement” wind at night in winter?

And how would that happen during a 5 to 7-day wind/solar lull?

Would such people be part of the GWSA “Council of Wise Men” to “fight climate change”? See URL

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-global-warming-sol...

 

Table 4 shows the prices of solar, before and after subsidies, and before and after cost shifting, in sun-starved New England.

 

Table 4/Vermont & NE sources	Paid to	Subsidies	Grid*	GMP	Added to	Total	Utility	Times
	owner	to owner	support cost	adder	rate base	cost	cost
	c/kWh	c/kWh	c/kWh	c/kWh	c/kWh	c/kWh	c/kWh
Solar, resident roof, net-metered, new	17.4	5.2	2.1	3.5	20.9	28.2	7.60	3.7
Solar, resident roof, net-metered, legacy	18.2	5.4	2.1	3.5	21.7	29.2	7.60	3.8
Solar, com’l/ind’l, SO, combo	11.0	6.74	2.1		11.0	19.84	7.60	2.6
Solar, com’l/ind’l, SO, legacy	21.7	10.5	2.1		21.7	34.3	7.60	4.5
Wind, ridge line, new	9.0	4.1	2.4		9.0	15.5	7.60	2.0
Wind, offshore, new	12.1	5.4	2.8		12.1	20.3	7.60	2.7

 

* Excludes costs for battery and floating offshore wind systems

“Added to rate base” is for recent 20-y electricity supply contracts awarded by competitive bidding in NE.

“Added to rate base” would be much higher without subsidies and cost shifting.

Areas with better wind and solar conditions, and lower construction costs/MW have lower c/MWh, than NE

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fortress-vermont-a-mult...

APPENDIX 4

Vermont total use was about 5,600,000 MWh (as fed to user meters), of which solar was about 473.686/5600 = 8.5%, in 2019

See page 24 of URL and table 5

https://www.velco.com/assets/documents/2018%20LRTP%20Final%20_asfil...

 

Table 5 summarizes the above three major categories of solar in Vermont.

 

Table 5/ Vermont Total Solar	End 2018	End 2019	Average 2019	Average 2019		End 2019
	MW ac	MW ac	Average MW ac	Average MW dc	CF	MWh
Vermont Net-Metered, VTDigger URL	196.492	229.924	213.208	256.877	0.1300	292,732
Vermont Standard Offer, per VEPP, Inc.	53.542	58.797	56.170	67.674	0.1404	83,270
Vermont Utility, by subtraction	56.266	75.519	65.893	79.389	0.1404	97,684
Total, per ISO-NE pv solar forecast	306.300	364.240	335.270	403.940		473,686

APPENDIX 5

BURNING WOOD IS NOT RENEWABLE

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/burning-wood-is-not-ren...

 

Pro-logging interests use “Burning Wood is Renewable” as a slogan, a mantra, to assure others all is benign, because it helps save the world, fight global warming, are part of the “solution”, and thus deserves to get money via the Global Warming Solutions Act.

 

Sources of CO2 of Logging Sector

 

All of us need to be on the same page regarding the A-to-Z sources of CO2. Here is a list.

 

1) Before logging, the logging sector has to be set up, operated, maintained and renewed, which emits CO2

2) A wood-burning plant has to be built, which emits CO2

3) The logging process includes maintaining the woodlot, culling, harvesting, chipping, and transport to user, which emits CO2

4) Operating the plant requires electricity, diesel fuel etc., which emits CO2

5) The combustion process emits CO2; in fact, emits more lb/million Btu than coal; coal power plants are up to 44% efficient, wood-burning plants about 25%

6) The combustion process emits sub-micron particulates, which requires electricity for air pollution control systems, which emits CO2

7) Delivering the heat and electricity to users requires electricity, which emits CO2.

8) Heavy cutting and clearcutting releases belowground biomass decay CO2; belowground is about 20% of all biomass.

9) Dismantling the old wood-burning plant and replacing it with a new one.

 

Combustion CO2, about 56% + Decay CO2, about 14%, equals about 70% of A-to-Z CO2.

It has the possibility of being partially renewable.

All other items are like all other CO2, i.e., not renewable.

They are almost never mentioned by logging proponents. See table 7

 

Here is an explanation regarding Item 8

 

Most people are familiar with the logging industry claim it harvests low value trees for burning, i.e., misshapen, diseased trees, standing deadwood, etc., called net available low grade, NALG, whereas, in fact, that is often not true, based on satellite and drone photos of clearcutting on harvested areas.

 

"Wood-Burning is Renewable", Say Logging Proponents

 

The other logging industry claim is "wood burning is renewable" and therefore its combustion CO2 should not be counted (the EPA and IPCC are proponents of this fallacy), whereas, in fact, wood-burning is not renewable at all.

 

I have written extensively on the CO2 released just after clearcutting.

This article has 5 examples of CO2 released, due to clearcutting

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-emissions-from-logg...

 

In northern climates, it takes about 35 years for the CO2 to get back to neutral

The initial CO2 release, due to belowground biomass decay, is very high, and the decay is on-going for about 80 to 100 years. 

The released CO2 far exceeds any CO2 absorbed by the regrowth on the HARVESTED AREA.

That negative condition continues for about 17 years.

But to offset that negative condition, and get back to neutral, regrowth on the HARVESTED AREA needs to take place for another 17 to 18 years

 

The decay CO2 is entirely independent from 1) combustion CO2, and 2) harvesting and other CO2.

 

- Combustion CO2 of year 1 would have to wait for 35 years to start being absorbed by regrowth on the HARVESTED AREA, which takes about 80 - 100 years.

 

- Harvesting and other CO2, due to: 1) logging, 2) chipping, 3) transport, 4) in-plant processing, and 5) plant operations other than combustion, etc., is like all other CO2.

 

The Real World

 

However, in the real world, loggers would come along, see 40 to 45-y-old trees, and cut them down; veni, vidi, vici; i.e., the CO2 absorption process is CUT SHORT.

 

The logging industry continues to claim, without blushing: "Burning wood is renewable".

 

Regarding table 7, people may argue about the percentages of each category, but not about the existence of each category.

Table 7		Renewable, per Proponents	Renewable, Real World
Sources of CO2		%	%
Item 1	Industry set-up, upkeep	3
Item 2	Plant construction, upkeep	2
Item 3	Logging process	8
Item 4	Plant operation	8
Item 5	Combustion	56	5.6
Item 6	Air cleaning	3
Item 7	Energy delivery	2
Item 8	Belowground decay	14	1.4
Item 9	Plant replacement	4
Total		100	7

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/burning-wood-is-not-ren...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-forests-and-co2...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/dartmouth-biomass-boile...

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-case-against-intens...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/dartmouth-reconsidering...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-is-harvesting-w...

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/dartmouth-s-planned-bio...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/burning-wood-produces-e...

APPENDIX 6

The VT-CEP Target of 35% of Vermont’s Thermal Energy Demand with Wood Heating by 2030.

 

Based on the most recent year (2014) of US Energy Information Administration (EIA) data available, wood fuels (both traditional and advanced wood heating, AWH) met an estimated 21% of building heating demand in Vermont in 2014. Going to 35% by 2030 would not only displace oil, but also very-clean-burning propane and to some extent, very-clean-burning natural gas.

 

More specifically, the 2016 CEP calls for doubling the use of wood heating in Vermont by 2050

See pages 3 and 4 of URL

http://www.revermont.org/wp-content/uploads/FINAL-2030-Wood-Heat-Ro...

 

If wood heating were to increase from 2.5 million MWh of annual thermal energy generation in 2016 to 4.3 million MWh in 2030, significantly more AWH systems and pellet stoves would need to be installed across the residential, commercial, and institutional building market sectors.

 

The 35% target by 2030 would need the additional installation of:

 

- 38,905 wood pellet stoves (or about 30% of all single-family homes)

- 10,519 bulk pellet fueled boilers (or about 16% of all single-family homes with

centralized hydronic heat distribution networks)

- 2,574 pellet boilers in small commercial buildings (or about 6% of that market

segment)

- 221 woodchip boilers in larger commercial/institutional buildings and district heating

plants (or about 4% of that market segment).

 

Where is that wood going to come from?

 

Presently, Vermont obtains all of its annual harvest from about 2.2 million AVAILABLE acres, even though VT has 4.5 million acres of timberland. The rest is unavailable for many reasons.

 

The ANNUAL biomass growth on the 2.2 million acres is about equal to Vermont’s ANNUAL harvests; i.e., VT harvesting is maxed out!!!

 

However, Vermont’s national and state forests, heretofore mostly OFF LIMITS, are now going to be harvested big time, according to plans on file with the US Forest Service. Here are some websites for your information.

 

Government bureaucrats and logging proponents often claim there is little clearcutting in Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine.

That is not true, based on-site inspections, and satellite and drone surveillance.

Just Google and you will find plenty of clearcutting all over the place, including in national and state forests.

 

Vermont Clearcutting

 

Here are some random Google Earth images of clearcutting in Vermont, before the proposed logging and clearcutting of the Green Mountain National Forest, GMNF.

http://www.maforests.org/VERMONTCLEARCUTTING.pdf

 

As you look through the plans, at the list of proposed acreage of each logging type, in each plan, it is worth noting “group selection” in USFS timberspeak, is simply a bunch of “smaller” one to two football field sized clearcuts, not in any sense what people think of when they think of “selective” logging.  An example can be seen on page 15 of URL

https://www.fs.usda.gov/nfs/11558/www/nepa/108977_FSPLT3_5339483.pdf

 

Also, the 15-year GMNF plan is set to expire in 2021. GMNF is pushing these long-term, “programmatic” projects to essentially tie its own hands, before it gets around to revising its Forest Plan. These projects have the real danger of pre-allocating lands to active management (including portions of inventoried roadless areas) before the forest goes through a proper Forest Plan revision process.

GMNF is rushing to get these projects done while the current administration is in office. See URL

https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/gmfl/landmanagement/planning/?cid=FS...

 

New Hampshire Clearcutting

 

Here are some random Google Earth images of clearcutting in the White Mountain National Forest, in NH, similar to what is planned now for the GMNF, though the plans for GMNF appear got be even more aggressive.  

http://www.maforests.org/WMNF.pdf

 

For a view of what the logging will look like, see the identical “vegetation treatments” in White Mountain National Forest in NH

http://www.maforests.org/WMNF.pdf

 

Massachusetts Clearcutting

 

Much of Maine has already been heavily cutover, and I don’t have any images of that, but in this report, the green areas show forests with greater biomass (i.e., larger trees), where much new logging is being targeted 

http://www.maforests.org/DFW.pdf

 

Lots of Clearcutting Coming to GMNF 

 

15,000 acres, 12,000 acres of it is clearcutting

https://www.fs.usda.gov/nfs/11558/www/nepa/108891_FSPLT3_4658907.pdf

 

About 6700 acres more logging in GMNF

https://www.fs.usda.gov/nfs/11558/www/nepa/97348_FSPLT3_2363593.pdf

 

Thousands more acres here

https://www.fs.usda.gov/nfs/11558/www/nepa/103699_FSPLT3_3987566.pdf

 

Look at the logging on just this one "project":

https://www.fs.usda.gov/nfs/11558/www/nepa/97348_FSPLT3_3032534.pdf

 

Burning Wood is NOT Clean

 

Regarding the "cleanliness" of wood...

http://www.pfpi.net/air-pollution-2

 

High Asthma Rates in Vermont

 

Vermont already has some of the highest asthma rates in the country

https://learn.uvm.edu/blog/blog-health/asthma-rates-in-vermont

 

Oregon, the Paragon of Clearcutting

 

And for twice the fun, for anyone interested just to see how bad an unchecked logging industry can get, see this video from Oregon:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0j_Msmz44M

APPENDIX 7

Electricity for Electric Vehicles

 

Major adjustments in lifestyles and transportation patterns, and increased mileage requirements, as mandated by GWSA, would be required to significantly reduce gasoline consumption and delivered electricity by 2050

 

Vermonters drove about 7.4 billion miles, in 2019

Registered IC vehicles + non-plug-in hybrids about 559276, in 2019

Average mileage was 22.7 mpg, EPA combined, in 2019

Gasoline consumption was 326 million gallons, in 2019.

See pages 46 and 47 of URL

https://legislature.vermont.gov/assets/Legislative-Reports/2020-Ann...

 

If 70% of total vehicles (see table 8) became electric vehicles by 2050 (the rest would be plug-in hybrids, non-plug-in diesel, etc.), and average consumption was 0.350 kWh/mile, at wall outlet, the required electricity would be 0.70 x 7.4 billion mile/y x 0.350 kWh/mile = 1.81 billion kWh/y, at wall outlet.

 

Vermont current consumption is about 5.6 billion kWh/y, at wall outlet

Electricity delivered to ratepayers would become about 5.6 + 1.81 = 7.41 billion kWh/y by 2050

 

Here follows the analysis of two alternatives

 

For Alternative 1, it is assumed, in 2050:

 

IC vehicles would be 459276, and non-plug-in hybrids would be 100000; 40 mpg, EPA combined

No EVs

 

If the average mileage would be increased to 40 mpg, EPA combined, by 2050 (due to increased non-plug-in hybrids), gasoline consumption would decrease to 7.4 billion/40 mpg x 1.0, IC fraction = 185.0 million gallon/y.

CO2 emissions would be 1.96 MMt, at 23.371 lb CO2/gal, including upstream, and CO2 of ethanol not counted.

CO2 reduction would become 43.3%

 

That could be achieved with no changes in lifestyle and minimal investments and subsidies.

 

For Alternative 2, it is assumed, in 2050:

 

70% of mileage would be driven be EVs

30% of mileage would be driven ICs and non-plug-in hybrids; 40 mpg, EPA combined

 

If the average mileage would be increased to 40 mpg EPA combined, by 2050 (due to increased non-plug-in hybrids), gasoline consumption would decrease to 7.4 billion/40 mpg x 0.3, IC fraction = 55.5 million gallon/y.

Electricity consumption by EVs would become 1.81 billion kWh/y

CO2 reduction would become 72.5%

 

Table 8/LDVs in Vermont	2019	2050	2050
	Existing	No EVs	70% EV/30% gasoline/
		Increased	Increased
		mileage	mileage
Registered vehicles, excludes non-plug-ins	547199	459276	459276
Registered non-plug-in hybrids	12077	100000	100000
Total vehicles	559276	559276	559276
EV fraction of total vehicles	0	0	0.7
EV vehicles			391493
IC vehicle fraction of total vehicles	1.0	1.0	0.3
IC vehicles	559276	559276	167783
Gasoline
Driven miles, billion	7.4	7.4	7.4
Average mileage, EPA combined	22.7	40	40
Gasoline consumption, million gallon	326.0	185.0	55.5
Electricity
Consumption, kWh/mile, at wall outlet			0.35
Electricity to EVs, billion kWh in 2050	0	0	1.81
Electricity to ratepayers, at present, billion kWh	5.60	5.60	5.60
Electricity to ratepayers, in 2050, billion kWh	5.60	5.60	7.41
Gasoline CO2
Gasoline CO2 emission, lb/gal, incl. upstream	23.371	23.371	23.371
Gasoline CO2, million metric ton	3.46	1.96	0.59
Electricity CO2
NE grid CO2 emissions, g/kWh, incl. upstream	304	200	200
Electricity CO2, million metric ton	0	0	0.36
Total CO2, million metric ton	3.46	1.96	0.95
CO2 reduction, %		43.3	72.5