SUMMARY
In the past 3 decades the scientific community has documented a rise in the Earth’s average
temperature attributed to increasing CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion. Global warming threatens life
on the Earth and is a focus of government policy initiatives. Energy policy represents the outcome of competing
interest: the public interests for efficient and effective control of global warming and corporate interests for
continued and increasing profits. The complexity of energy policy effectively limits public involvement in its
development while the strong business interests of energy corporations, their relative wealth, and access to
policy makers through full-time lobbyists tips policy development in their favor. The disparity between public
and corporate ability to influence policy risks capture of the government by business interests.
The development of non-CO2 emitting, renewable energy is the most apparent initiative to address
global warming. Utility-scale, ridgeline wind projects receive government subsidy and satisfy corporate interests
for a new revenue stream and profits. Many of the public do not perceive that renewable energy projects
advance the public’s interest and find that their adverse effects outweigh their benefits. In Vermont, the costs
and benefits of energy projects are to be weighed in the Public Service Board (PSB) Section 248 process.
However, similar to policy development, the relative wealth and lobbying activity of energy officials outweighs
the public’s ability to participate in the PSB process and further risks the capture of the government by business
interests.
Vermont Law protects the public’s interest by objectively defining the features of an energy project that
must be characterized and evaluated in the PSB process. Citizens have a duty to support the decisions of public
officials once the statutory process has been followed; similarly, they have a duty to oppose a decision if they
find that the statutory process has not been followed or that a decision benefits a few at the expense of the
overall Vermont community.
Civil disobedience is an option for citizens to oppose government action that they find to be unjust.
Gandhi described civil disobedience as the “highest duty of a citizen” while others describe it has respectful but
unambiguous disagreement. Citizens are willing to risk legal classification as a criminal in order to advance
justice.
On December 5, 2011 six citizens trespassed on land of disputed ownership on the Lowell Wind Project
being constructed by Green Mountain Power as an act of civil disobedience. They find that: Vermont’s statutory
process for approving an energy project has not been followed, the wind project benefits corporations at the
public’s expense, Vermont’s government has been captured by business interests. They chose to be charged
with criminal trespass in order to bring the evidence before a jury of their peers as the PSB process was
adversarial and inaccessible to their fair and open participation.
BACKGROUND
The Earth’s average temperature has increased .5 C in the past 30 years. The scientific community finds
the most probable explanation for this increase to be the burning of fossil fuels combined with deforestation.
Given current human activity the Earth’s temperature is projected to rise 1.1 to 6.4 C in this century. With a 4 C
rise in temperature the limits of human adaptation will likely be exceeded in many parts of the Earth and the
limits for adaptation of natural systems which are the basis for human livelihood will be exceeded throughout
the Earth. Policy makers strive to limit global warming to less than 2 C in order to minimize the adverse effects
of global warming.
1
The public’s interest in addressing global warming is the timely implementation of policies that can lead
to meaningful reductions in CO2 emissions at the lowest possible cost/metric ton of CO2. The major public
policy initiatives to date to address global warming are subsidy for the development of renewable energy
projects and the implementation of Renewable Portfolio Standards in 29 states and the District of Columbia.
Vermont does not have a Renewable Portfolio Program but a one-of-a-kind, policy named the Sustainably Priced
Energy Development Program (SPEED).
SPEED was passed by the Legislature (30 VSA §8001, §8005) in June 2005. SPEED’s goal is to develop instate renewable energy such that the primary economic benefits of the new renewable energy flows to the
Vermont economy and Vermont rate payers. In 2009, SPEED was amended to create “standard offer” contracts
and “feed in tariffs” for new sources of renewable energy that contribute less than 2.2 MW. For a utility to
qualify for a SPEED resource a renewable energy project must either be owned by the utility or under its longterm lease.
SPEED goals are:
1) To meet all new electricity load growth from January 1, 2005 through July 1, 2012 with
SPEED resources,
2) To provide at least 294,283 MWH (5% of 2005 load) from SPEED resources by July 1, 2012,
3) To generate 20% of Vermont’s load with SPEED resources by 2017.
The 2005 Vermont electricity demand was 5,885,660 MWH increasing by 734,330 MWH (12.5 % of
2005) to 6,619,990 MWH for 2010. Load data for the year 2011 is not yet available. Current estimates of SPEED
resources are 771,590 MWH (13.1 % of 2005) on line or in development. The Lowell Wind Project is estimated to
contribute 185,570 MWH and is the largest SPEED resource at 24% of the total. Unless there is a large increase
in demand in 2011 the first goal of the SPEED program seems within reach and the second has been satisfied.
To reach the 2017 goal requires the equivalent of about 4 new Lowell Wind Projects to be developed over the
next 5 years. Failure to meet these goals results in the automatic reversion of SPEED to a Renewable Portfolio
Standard (RPS).
One must understand a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to properly appreciate the exceptional
feature of SPEED. Renewable energy has two attributes: electricity measured in kilowatt hours (kwh) and sold at
cents/kwh, and the lack of emissions sold at $/megawatt hour (mwh) as Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs).
While it is uncommon to consider the lack of something as a marketable attribute, in the case of renewable
energy the concept is useful. Either attribute can be bought or sold on the open market. An RPS specifies the
proportion of electricity consumed within a state that will have no carbon emissions/a REC. Utilities may either
generate the clean renewable energy to satisfy a RPS or they can use carbon emitting energy and buy a REC
from another producer of renewable energy. Once sold a REC cannot be used by its producer to satisfy an RPS.
The RECs generated by the Lowell Wind Project will be sold to satisfy RPS requirements in any of the states that
have a RPS. Renewable energy is generally more expensive to produce than fossil fuel based energy. The cost of
the REC represents the difference in the market value between renewable and fossil fuel energy. The power of
the RPS is that it allows the buyer (the utilities) to buy electricity and RECS from the lowest cost seller. This
standard market mechanism provides the most cost-effective allocation of societal resources.
2
THE EXCEPTIONAL FEATURE OF SPEED IS ISOLATION OF VERMONT FROM THE MARKETPLACE, DENYING
RATE PAYERS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE LEAST EXPENSIVE POWER AND RECS WHILE ASSURING MARKET
SHARE AND RETURNS ON INVESTMENTS FOR VERMONT’S UTILITIES AND THEIR OWNERS. SPEED is structured to
preclude the most cost-effective allocation of societal resources by avoiding the energy market. A recent
comprehensive analysis of all policy options considered reasonable to affect global warming by the National
Energy Policy Institute and Resources for the Future did not include SPEED or its equivalent in the analysis.1 The
economic effect of SPEED on Vermont depends on the relative cost of renewable energy generated in Vermont
compared to what is available on the market. For example, many locations can generate wind energy at or
below market prices. If Vermont’s wind resources are similar to these competitive sites then both Vermont
utilities and rate payers benefit economically by in-state projects. On the other hand, if Vermont’s renewable
energy resources are significantly more expensive than the market, a Clean Energy Portfolio Standard (CEPS) [A
CEPS is a more comprehensive version of a RPS] would be both better for the Vermont economy and have a
much larger impact on reducing CO2 emissions.1
On May 21, 2010 Green Mountain Power filed a request with the Public Service Board for a Certificate of
Public Good pursuant to 30 V.S.A. Section 248 “to construct up to a 63 MW wind electric generation facility and
associated facilities on Lowell Mountain in Lowell, Vermont.” GMP’s goal was to replace the emission-free
electricity that would be lost should Vermont Yankee be closed and to meet the July 2012 SPEED goal of all new
demand since 2005 to be met by SPEED resources. The defendants and or their agents and representatives
participated as parties and/or observers in the ensuing Public Service Board Proceedings.
Citizens have a duty to support government decisions that have been crafted through a rigorous and
transparent process with the goal of advancing the public’s interest. This duty supersedes any personal
disagreement that a citizen may have with a decision. However, citizens have a right and duty to alter the
government when it renders decisions that only serve the interests of a few (Vermont Constitution, Article 7),
most especially when there is obvious and significant departure from the prescribed statutory process.
Vermont statutes name relevant features to consider for a new renewable energy project. A project is
to:
1. Contribute to reductions in global climate change. (30 V.S.A. § 8001 (a) (6))
2. Be the lowest-present value life-cycle cost alternative. (30 V.S.A § 248 (b)(2))
3. Benefit, to the greatest extent possible, the Vermont economy and Vermont rate payers.
(30 V.S.A. § 8001 (a) (1))
Vermont statues also name essential features of the decision process. The process is to:
1. Characterize and compare both environmental and economic costs of alternative projects.
(30 V.S.A § 248 (b)(2))
On May 31, 2011, the Public Service Board issued a Certificate of Public Good to Green Mountain Power
approving their proposed wind development on Lowell Mountain without publicly addressing and documenting
the anticipated effects on climate change, environmental costs and economic costs. As these features are
essential for sound decision-making to advance the public’s interest and as the standard practice of the Public
Service Board does not evaluate them and as ridgeline wind projects are being considered for many miles of our
ridgelines, and as global warming is a major threat to the children of Vermont and future generations on
December 5, 2011 the six defendants were forced to trespass on land of disputed ownership to expose these
3
violations of Vermont statutes to their fellow citizens in order to prevent further damage to the public’s interest
by the ongoing malpractice of the Public Service Board.
EVIDENCE
1. Governor Shumlin falsely claims that ridgeline wind projects contribute to reductions in global
warming.
Comments of Governor Shumlin at Opening Ceremony for Sheffield Wind Project
“I’ve been on this job ten months, and so far I’ve managed three major floods: the floods of April,
the floods of May, and Irene of August. Those floods have done untold damage to Vermonters….And
you might wonder what that’s got to do with today. It has everything to do with why I’m so
supportive,….why we are so right to be building renewable power as fast as we know how. Because
climate change is the biggest threat to our children’s and our grandchildren’s future. And we in
Vermont must lead – get off our addiction to oil, harness the wind and the sun and the woods and
the water and our fields…(applause) and this project is an example of how to do it right.”
Governor Shumlin is leading the state to get 90% of its energy from renewable sources by 2050.
While our political leadership proclaims that we are doing the right thing to reduce global warming, peer
reviewed analyses predict a 9% increase in U.S. green house gas emissions from 2007 to 2035 with all current
energy policies (RPSs, SPEED, subsidy to renewable energy projects) in place and climate change proceeding
undeterred. Figure 1 displays the predicted c02 emissions through 2035.
Millions of Metric tons of CO2
Emissions
Figure 1: Predicted CO2 Emissions with Current Energy
Policies in Place (Energy Information Administration)
6500.00
y = 27.648x - 49935
R² = 0.775
6000.00
5500.00
Metric Tons of co2 emissions
(millions)
5000.00
Linear (Metric Tons of co2
emissions (millions))
4500.00
4000.00
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
Year
4
2040
The drop in CO2 emissions that begin in 1980 and 2008 represent the beginning of economic recessions
and not the initiation of effective policies. When the economy resumes its expansion there is a continued
increase in CO2 emissions at an average rate of 28 million metric tons per year.
The reason for the continued increase in green house gas emissions despite RPSs and SPEED is easily
apparent. Figure 2 displays the relative consumption of fossil fuel and renewable energy for electricity
generation in the interval of 1949-2010. For every new megawatt hour of renewable energy in the interval 19492010 there were 9 new megawatt hours of fossil fuel energy. There has been no significant change in this trend
over the past 2 decades during implementation of Renewable Portfolio Standards and the Regional Green House
Gas Initiative of the northeast and mid-Atlantic states. The potential positive effect of increasing renewable
energy and the billions of dollars of public subsidies to renewable energy projects have been and are being
wasted in a policy context that does not require fossil fuels to carry the cost of their green house gas emissions.
THE PRIMARY CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT A DEFICIENCY OF RENEWABLE ENERGY BUT UNRESTRAINED
USE OF FOSSIL FUELS. Subsidies to renewable energy encourage their development rather than penalizing
carbon-based fuels. They assure profits for the manufacturers of renewable energy products, give the illusion of
meaningful policy and protect the revenues of fossil fuel energy corporations.
Figure 2: U.S. Total Electricity Consumption by
Fuel 1949 - 2010 (Energy Information
Billions of KWHs
Adminstration)
3500
y = 47.374x - 92168
3000
R² = 0.9893
2500
2000
1500
1000
y = 5.1039x - 9832.8
500
R² = 0.8707
0
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Renewables
Fossil Fuels
Linear (Renewables)
Linear (Fossil Fuels)
Year
While the image of wind turbines on pristine ridgelines gives the appearance of meaningful energy
policy, this is only a politically advantageous illusion benefitting the renewable energy business community.
Such a project will generate: 1) electricity at an estimated 9.2 cents per kwh, and 2) the lack of emissions at an
estimated 3 cents per kwh (renewable energy credit). The renewable energy credits will be sold to reduce retail
costs to Vermont rate payers and allow a fossil-fuel plant purchasing the RECs to continue its CO2 emissions.
The more truthful image would be large smoke stacks on the Lowell Ridgeline pouring greenhouse gas emissions
into the atmosphere. THERE IS NO NET REDUCTION OF CO2 EMISSIONS WHEN THE RECS ARE SOLD.
The Lowell Wind Project is not part of a comprehensive program to decrease carbon emissions and
thereby does not satisfy the statutory requirement to contribute to reductions in global climate change. (30
V.S.A. § 8001 (a) (6)) The Lowell Wind Project only gives the facile illusion of doing the right thing.
5
2. The Lowell Wind Project has not been documented to be the least cost alternative and there is
evidence that it is more costly than other options.
Due to the slow growth of the economy and the development of new hydroelectric
facilities by Hydro-Quebec2, over the next decade Hydro-Quebec will have 20 terra watts of excess
electricity, 10 times the output of the Lowell Wind Project. Historically Hydro-Quebec has been able
to retail electricity at 6.88 cents per kwh and to generate electricity at 2-3 cents per kwh compared
to the estimated 9.2 cents per kwh (10.1 cents with inclusion of the production tax credit)
generation cost of the Lowell Wind Project. Over the expected life span of the Lowell Wind Project
each .1 cents/kwh difference in price is equivalent to $4,600,000; each 1 cent difference costs the
Vermont economy $46,000,000 over the next 25 years. For example, if the HydroQuebec power
could be obtained at 5 cents/kwh, societal cost savings for both the energy and lack of emissions
would be $193,200,000 plus an additional $47,000,000 savings from taxes for the production tax
credits for a total of $240,200,000 in societal savings, with $193,200,000 being saved by Vermont
rate payers. This magnitude of cost savings would be a significant benefit to the Vermont economy
but Hydro-Quebec does not meet the SPEED requirement of either being owned or under long-term
lease to Green Mountain Power. There is no public documentation that this option has been
evaluated.
In a database of renewable energy projects maintained by the Environmental Protection
Agency, the average capital cost of wind projects since the year 2000 is $1400/KW with a maximum
of $1700/KW.3 The Lowell Wind Project cost $2500/KW. The average capacity factor of the EPA
database wind projects is 44 %. The Lowell Wind Project has an estimated capacity factor of 36%.
The high capital cost of the Lowell Wind Project and lower than average capacity factor indicates
that there will be a higher cost of electricity from this project compared to many other wind projects
in the energy market.
Vermont statues require that a utility’s portfolio be the least-cost alternative. Figure 3
compares the estimated generation cost of market electricity over the next 25 years with the GMP
best guest estimate of the cost of generating energy from the Lowell Wind Project. While the
generation cost of the Lowell Wind Project is 9.2 cents/kwh this is reduced by $47,000,000 in
production tax credits (PTC). When the PTC is added to the levelized cost of 9.2 cents, the actual
societal cost is 10.12 cents, as depicted in the figure 3. The levelized cost only includes current
known costs and does not include the unknowns, for example, the costs of lawsuits related to loss of
property values or noised related illness or additional system upgrades required by the transmission
system. It also only includes generation costs, not transmission and distribution costs.
6
Figure 3: Predicted Generation Cost of Electricity 20082035
Lowell Wind Project
12
Cents per kWh
10
8
6
Northeast U.S. Market
4
2
0
2010
Year
2015
2020
2025
2030
Source: Energy Information Administration
2035
2040
As expected the market costs are lower than the costs of the Lowell Wind Project. It is
possible that Vermont could obtain the same amount of energy and CO2 offset by participating in a
Renewable Portfolio Standard. This alternative has not been evaluated nor documented in the PSB
process. Specifically what are the costs and benefits of failing to meet SPEED goals and
automatically reverting to a RPS, a widely acknowledged policy alternative.
The cost-effectiveness of the Lowell Wind Project in reducing CO2 emissions is 4 times
more than what is necessary to reduce CO2 emissions.4 With policies in place that effectively
restrain the use of fossil fuels, CO2 emissions can be effectively reduced at an average cost less than
$25/metric ton of CO2. The cost of CO2 offset from the Lowell Wind Project is at least $100/metric
ton of CO2. Figure 4 combines effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of policies that have been
considered to reduce CO2 emissions.1 A reduction of 12,000 million metric tons by 2030 is the
threshold value for identifying an effective policy. Bar height indicates effectiveness in reducing CO2
emissions; bar color indicates the cost/ton reduced. Only policies that penalize carbon emitters are
able to significantly reduce CO2 emissions. However, most significantly for the Lowell Wind Project,
once effective policies are in place the maximum cost necessary to pay for reducing CO2 is $25 per
ton. WHEN POLICIES THAT EFFECTIVELY RESTRAIN THE USE OF FOSSIL FULES ARE IN PLACE, THE
LOWELL WIND PROJECT IS NOT A COST-EFFECTIVE ALLOCATION OF SOCIETAL RESOURCES.
7
Figure 4: Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness in Reducing CO2 Emissions, 2010-20301
3. Environmental costs were not evaluated when selecting this project.
Vermont statute, as noted earlier, requires that utilities maintain least-cost integrated portfolios
and that the “least cost” include both environmental and economic costs. Figure 5 is a decision array similar to
that used by the PSB to compare renewable energy projects when the Lowell Wind Project was selected. (The
actual array used by the PSB is confidential and not available to the public.) There was no column for
consideration of environmental costs; the Lowell Wind Project was selected primarily on the basis of its
economic features and life span without active consideration of the environmental consequences. There were
options on the array that had no costs for the Vermont environment and there were options that had no
additional Vermont environmental costs. A proper characterization of the environmental cost of the Lowell
Wind Project is that it does irreparable harm to the 12th largest habitat block in the biophysical region.
8
Figure 5: Renewable Energy Projects
Project
Life Span
(Years)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
20
25
25
11
10
12.5
20
20
Approximate Levelized Project Price
(cents/kwh) 2010 cents
General
Description
11.4
10.3
11.6
11.3
10.7
12.4
12.2
11.6
-
CONCLUSIONS
Article 7 of the Vermont Constitution states that government is instituted for the community and that
when it no longer serves the community the people have “an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to
alter it”4 so that it once again serves the community.
The community’s interest in addressing global warming is the timely implementation of polices that can
lead to meaningful reductions in CO2 emissions at the lowest possible cost/metric ton of CO2. The Lowell Wind
Project is not part of an energy policy to affect global warming and has been falsely presented to Vermont
citizens as effective in affecting global warming. The project actually facilitates on-going carbon emissions. It
has not been shown to be the least-cost alternative for Vermont’s energy needs and was approved through a
process that does not meet statutory expectations. It does irreparable damage to the 12th largest habitat block
in the biophysical region. The Project does not advance the community’s interest.
The Project results from policies that shield Vermont’s utilities from market competition, provide
government subsidies to manufacturers of renewable energy equipment, guarantee utility owners long-term
returns on investments, and protect the energy industry’s profits from fossil fuel sales. In concept, the project
does advance the business interests of the project developer and its parent company as the primary investor.
The pattern of behavior expressed by the Public Service Board meets the criteria for a well-defined
syndrome of government failure named regulatory capture. Regulatory capture occurs when a regulatory
agency created to represent the public interest instead advances the business interest of the domain it is
charged with regulating. The state of capture acts as an encouragement for the business interests to produce
ongoing negative externalities on the public. In this instance irreparable damage is done to the environment,
higher than necessary costs are passed onto society, and there is no positive impact on CO2 emissions. A
captured agency may be worse than no regulation as it wields the authority of government. While the state of
government failure in addressing global warming extends well beyond Vermont, these 6 Vermonters contend
that the right way to address it can begin in Vermont.
9
REFERENCES
1. Krupnick AJ, Parry IWH, Walls M, Knowles T, Hayes K. Toward a New National Energy Policy:
Assessing the Options. National Energy Policy Institute and Resources for the Future, November
2010.
2. Moore L, “Quebec to be awash in surplus electricity. Demand declines; Natural gas generator to
remain mothballed.” Montreal Gazette, November 12, 2011.
3. http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/renewabledatabase.html accessed 2/13/2012
4. http://energizevermont.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/CE-Essay2.pdf accessed 2/13/2012
5. http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/const2.htm accessed 2/13/2012
10