Letter to the editor: Peter Shumlin's feminine side

Peter Shumlin's feminine side

Ms. Minter, you would function well under Vermont's renewable energy guidelines which were intentionally placed under Section 248 jurisdiction by your fellow Democrats. Section 248 was originally designed to facilitate utilities in emergency situations by allowing them to run utility lines and make other accommodations without lengthy regulatory procedures. You will find that the word 'mitigate' is used a lot within the Section 248 process. Such as mitigating bear habitat at the Deerfield Wind project with a one million dollar payment to the State of Vermont by the developer.

I've heard the expression 'you need to spend money to make money.' Is this what is going on behind the scenes in your campaign with the Super PAC money coming from the wind industry? When Theodore Roosevelt (a progressive) was governor of New York State he encountered the use of revenue from the corporate world in the form of campaign contributions to select candidates. This money came with a gentleman's (lady's) understanding that these candidates could be counted upon for important votes that benefited the corporation. Roosevelt labeled this threat "The Invisible Empire". Is Big Wind participating in a pre-buy for Vermont's mountain ridgelines in the event of your election?

The Federal wind production tax credit has been in place for more than two decades and it is set to continue until 2019. It is estimated by the Joint Committee on Taxation that this credit will cost taxpayers more than 20 Billion dollars (B) over 10 years. Presently developers are subsidized by the government at 30 percent of the project's cost. There is a $10 fee on every UVM student's tuition bill, every semester, for renewable energy (as if college tuition is not high enough!) And your campaign is promoting the carbon tax on our automobile fuel and home heating fuels. A large portion of the money generated is to be used, that's right, to fund renewable energy projects.

How much money are we going to be forced to pay for electricity? After all these subsides, it costs twice as much for wind generated electricity as electricity from traditional sources such as hydroelectric.

All of the Renewable Energy Credits (REC's) for the industrial wind turbines in VT are sold out of state and as a result contribute nothing to our 90% renewable goal. We are told that this helps keep the cost down, but these REC's will soon need to be retired within VT which means our rates will go up to cover the loss of the REC sales!

Ms. Minter I doubt your sincerity when you say you are for 'well sited' industrial wind because of how your fellow Democrats undermined legislation last session that tried to take a small step in that direction. Remember that fiasco that started out as S230, was vetoed by Governor Shumlin, and then converted to S260 and championed by Chris Bray and Tony Klein? It is now called Act 174 and it created even more liberal sound standards for the wind industry. The Public Service Board is all over this Act 174 ensuring that your wind friends will have even more entitlement to continue their predatory tactics on Vermont's residents and ridgelines.

Your party is not selling Vermont's mountains — you're giving them away!

— Dustin Lang Swanton


If you'd like to leave a comment (or a tip or a question) about this story with the editors, please email us. We also welcome letters to the editor for publication; you can do that by filling out our letters form and submitting it to the newsroom.

Powered by Creative Circle Media Solutions