Bill, Are you aware that here in Vermont, the PUC is apparently considering making a massive change in net metering compensation to owners of solar?
My understanding is that the reimbursement rate is proposed to drop by about two-thirds. Reportedly this is being driven by a report that came from the Department of Public Service.
There is clear concern for the impact on those who have installed solar, those who were motivated to help both the environment and to control utility costs.
Additional concern is that new installation of solar will be effectively halted by the very unfavorable economics of this idea.
With the threat of tariffs on energy (including electricity) from Canada, it would seem like a very poor time to discourage the installation of new solar.
Hi Mardi, from your neighbor to the east in NH. We’ve had met metering that reimburses at about 65% of the full retail cost of grid electricity since 2017. While I don’t know the specifics of what is happening in VT, for us anyone who installed prior to 2017 is still grandfathered into the original 1:1 net metering value. Hopefully you would have the same. One thing will be true though no matter what, having solar and battery storage in residential homes will help to not only cut emissions but also to provide substantial cost savings and resiliency. In my home we have gone nearly fully electric (have to get the last heat pumps in to replace oil) and the savings in transportation fuel, water heating, and general electric usage is phenomenal. As energy prices shoot up people will be more tempted to electrify, even if the rate structures aren’t as good as they once were. Once they electrify all or most of their home they won’t want to go back to the old way of doing things. The cost savings and better performance is too hard to give up. It will be okay. While the IRA incentives for solar will be missed, they were still going to sunset eventually. Now will just be an accelerated timeline of this, but going hand in hand with increased traditional energy costs to incentivize the adoption.
I have no regrets! Formerly, pre-solar, pre-batteries, pre-heat exchange water heater and heating for the house, our total annual bills were running around $6K/year. Now its closer to $2500. Yes, it was a big investment, but it's generally keeping our costs low.
I don't know what's ahead. Hopefully a stable situation.
Hi there Bill, thank you for the positive vision at the end of your stack. I think it’s important to have more positive visions of the world we want to see. Perhaps you can share more of such visions, ask readers to share theirs, and we can and will make them happen and soon.
One vision: those who can afford it decide to take one day off a week from driving anywhere. You’re allowed to carpool though, but no taxis, Ubers. Only public transportation or bike, walk, sail, paddle.
Another vision: those of us who can don’t buy anything on February 28. (Not my idea)
I love Snyder. But I can’t read through these newsletters & substacks anymore. They are too long. It’s destroying journalism. Everyone walking into their own substack forgetting that everyone else is also now writing a substack. Cox Richardson. Mckibben. Krugman. Applebaum. On & on. This is a self indulgence which is working against the sharing of information at a time when it could not be more urgent. It turns out everyone needs editors after all.
Bill as you know I’m your huge fan. But we need SO MANY MORE people to read you than will do so on here. It’s not about the cost, it’s about the time. When just a few people were on substack (& you were one of the first) it was possible to read you alongside the other journalism. But have you seen how many people are now moving from traditional news’s sources & providing long form almost hourly for us? We need a place where all your powerful & urgent voices are together again. Like a magazine or a newspaper. What you write is so incredibly necessary & maybe I don’t understand how this works but I don’t see how you’re reaching those we need you to reach?
Thank you regardless. Obviously I seek you out….so I’m here. Overwhelmed but here. 🙏❤️
Bills articles are more inclusive more comprehensive than most by far. I gladly pay to read them and support your remarkable civic engagement activism beyond the screens.
Science has studied LNG and we know it's harmful for people exposed to it cooking or heating their homes, so now we are exporting it overseas people!?!?!?!
Blackmailing foreigh nations with the treat of tarrifs has to be the lowest of blows when the production of LNG and fossil fuel global warming is a treat to the very existance of island nations like Japan. The fate of small islands that are part of this "friendly partern nation" doubles down on the bad idea of tarrifs. Worse idea, making nations pay with lives and land to placate petrolium industries, pipelines and the dying gasp of this industry. What will be underwater first Japan or LNG?
It's too bad that India, Japan and others are caving to the threat of tariffs. If they could just hold off on LNG and continue their renewable energy projects, those tariffs would cause large price/inflation increases here in the US, turning more turnable minds against Trump.
I would like to send you a donation, but not at the rates you have locked in. I would prefer to donate like I do to the Guardian that allows the donor decide what to give, however modest. I would bet you are missing out on a lot of small donations that would add up.
I guess what hit me the hardest is the idea that we need to create a new mindset, a new “zeitgeist,” where clean energy isn’t just an alternative—it’s the solution. And that’s something we can help build, whether it’s through supporting initiatives like Sun Day, educating others, or pushing for change in our communities.
Bill recall that Elon Musk understands the science of climate change and only one year ago called for a carbon tax as the solution. He joined Trump because he admired the man after the asassination attempt (pbs nightlynews). Could you get to Musk as a man to admire and turn him back to a path for dealing with climate change. Yes, you. Please. Consider this idea- hos power, his intelligence,for a great good. And from another man of persistence and great good. Yes you.
If I may be so optimistic, what if Japan, Taiwan and India are just saying they will by the dirty LNG, but then don't buy it to buy some time. Or buy small amounts, until the crappy trump admin is done in four years. And if they do buy small amounts, can they just not use it?
Two reasons not to be too enthralled by cheaper renewables - path dependency and corruption. These are interrelated, of course. The first is long apparent and can easily be tilted in favor of clean energy via carbon pricing. But the latter is now on steroids. As a former banker, I was horrified to see Venture Global go public at a $50bn or so valuation (but it has traded poorly in the aftermarket). I searched for a comment on Howarth's lifecycle emissions in the prospectus (I didn't find any). But after reading your post today, Bill, I gave the AI app Perplexity a try on US LNG and the carbon budget. Read and weep below. As NOAA's lights are being turned off, the SEC sets fire to proposed climate disclosure regs, and the Paris AI conference sends the chill down our spines that Twitter + AI + Russia got Trump re-elected - we see here, most likely, corruptible AI:
Robert Howarth's 2024 lifecycle analysis of LNG emissions is not widely accepted or used to estimate the effect of US LNG expansion on the remaining carbon budget for well below 2 degrees. His study has been criticized for containing significant errors and overestimating emissions.
"Several key points regarding Howarth's analysis and its reception:
Errors and overestimation: Howarth's study has been found to overestimate the greenhouse gas intensity of delivered U.S. LNG by 32% to 84% for GWP20 and 30% to 61% for GWP1001.
Contradictory findings: Howarth's conclusions are contradicted by other analyses, including those conducted by the Department of Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) and the National Petroleum Council...
Alternative assessments: The Department of Energy's recent analysis suggests that increased availability of U.S. LNG from 23.7 Bcf/d to 56.3 Bcf/d in 2050 would result in only a 0.05% increase in cumulative global GHG emissions between 2020 and 2050."
Bill, you do more than is humanly possible already...but might you convene an "alliance" of US based climate science and economic modelers who do an annual report using whatever data remains accessible - for 2025-28? Sorry for the long post, but I guess I got the 1984 blues.
The National Petroleum Council is surely a better analytic for petroleum industry pollution! But hey, if you get the benefit and don't bear the costs - just go with it, right? Exxon playbook. US companies are 2/3rds of global market cap (MSCI() with US 4% of population. Our rule of law, intelligence. and integrity have worked. Topple those why...so we can get to 3/4ths? No, that is the road towards under half. Buy our LNG or face tariffs? Competition is overrated...
Bill, Are you aware that here in Vermont, the PUC is apparently considering making a massive change in net metering compensation to owners of solar?
My understanding is that the reimbursement rate is proposed to drop by about two-thirds. Reportedly this is being driven by a report that came from the Department of Public Service.
https://publicservice.vermont.gov/sites/dps/files/documents/Act%20179%20of%202024%20Report%20-%201.15.2025%20PSD.pdf
There is clear concern for the impact on those who have installed solar, those who were motivated to help both the environment and to control utility costs.
Additional concern is that new installation of solar will be effectively halted by the very unfavorable economics of this idea.
With the threat of tariffs on energy (including electricity) from Canada, it would seem like a very poor time to discourage the installation of new solar.
Hi Mardi, from your neighbor to the east in NH. We’ve had met metering that reimburses at about 65% of the full retail cost of grid electricity since 2017. While I don’t know the specifics of what is happening in VT, for us anyone who installed prior to 2017 is still grandfathered into the original 1:1 net metering value. Hopefully you would have the same. One thing will be true though no matter what, having solar and battery storage in residential homes will help to not only cut emissions but also to provide substantial cost savings and resiliency. In my home we have gone nearly fully electric (have to get the last heat pumps in to replace oil) and the savings in transportation fuel, water heating, and general electric usage is phenomenal. As energy prices shoot up people will be more tempted to electrify, even if the rate structures aren’t as good as they once were. Once they electrify all or most of their home they won’t want to go back to the old way of doing things. The cost savings and better performance is too hard to give up. It will be okay. While the IRA incentives for solar will be missed, they were still going to sunset eventually. Now will just be an accelerated timeline of this, but going hand in hand with increased traditional energy costs to incentivize the adoption.
Hi Justin,
Many thanks for your comments.
I have no regrets! Formerly, pre-solar, pre-batteries, pre-heat exchange water heater and heating for the house, our total annual bills were running around $6K/year. Now its closer to $2500. Yes, it was a big investment, but it's generally keeping our costs low.
I don't know what's ahead. Hopefully a stable situation.
Kind regards,
Mardi
Hi there Bill, thank you for the positive vision at the end of your stack. I think it’s important to have more positive visions of the world we want to see. Perhaps you can share more of such visions, ask readers to share theirs, and we can and will make them happen and soon.
One vision: those who can afford it decide to take one day off a week from driving anywhere. You’re allowed to carpool though, but no taxis, Ubers. Only public transportation or bike, walk, sail, paddle.
Another vision: those of us who can don’t buy anything on February 28. (Not my idea)
Peace!
Thanks Bill--Sunlight in the lengthening days--so grateful for you.
So he’s making them buy LNG. Like a protection racket.
I love Snyder. But I can’t read through these newsletters & substacks anymore. They are too long. It’s destroying journalism. Everyone walking into their own substack forgetting that everyone else is also now writing a substack. Cox Richardson. Mckibben. Krugman. Applebaum. On & on. This is a self indulgence which is working against the sharing of information at a time when it could not be more urgent. It turns out everyone needs editors after all.
well, that's why this is free. i don't think it's actually destroying journalism
Bill as you know I’m your huge fan. But we need SO MANY MORE people to read you than will do so on here. It’s not about the cost, it’s about the time. When just a few people were on substack (& you were one of the first) it was possible to read you alongside the other journalism. But have you seen how many people are now moving from traditional news’s sources & providing long form almost hourly for us? We need a place where all your powerful & urgent voices are together again. Like a magazine or a newspaper. What you write is so incredibly necessary & maybe I don’t understand how this works but I don’t see how you’re reaching those we need you to reach?
Thank you regardless. Obviously I seek you out….so I’m here. Overwhelmed but here. 🙏❤️
I get it. And that's why I keep writing for the New Yorker etc--but the advantage of this forum is I can combine reporting with advocacy
Bills articles are more inclusive more comprehensive than most by far. I gladly pay to read them and support your remarkable civic engagement activism beyond the screens.
Bill, bottom line, Trump is a mobster! Could somebody just, you know . . .him?
Science has studied LNG and we know it's harmful for people exposed to it cooking or heating their homes, so now we are exporting it overseas people!?!?!?!
Blackmailing foreigh nations with the treat of tarrifs has to be the lowest of blows when the production of LNG and fossil fuel global warming is a treat to the very existance of island nations like Japan. The fate of small islands that are part of this "friendly partern nation" doubles down on the bad idea of tarrifs. Worse idea, making nations pay with lives and land to placate petrolium industries, pipelines and the dying gasp of this industry. What will be underwater first Japan or LNG?
By the way, Tiawan is in the same sinking boat.
It's too bad that India, Japan and others are caving to the threat of tariffs. If they could just hold off on LNG and continue their renewable energy projects, those tariffs would cause large price/inflation increases here in the US, turning more turnable minds against Trump.
Incisive, heartwarming, great shot in the arm...post-election of the Trump-train sleaze, along with Muskrat in the caboose!
I would like to send you a donation, but not at the rates you have locked in. I would prefer to donate like I do to the Guardian that allows the donor decide what to give, however modest. I would bet you are missing out on a lot of small donations that would add up.
Thanks Bill--Sunlight in the lengthening days--so grateful for you.
Thank you for your invaluable truthful writing!
I guess what hit me the hardest is the idea that we need to create a new mindset, a new “zeitgeist,” where clean energy isn’t just an alternative—it’s the solution. And that’s something we can help build, whether it’s through supporting initiatives like Sun Day, educating others, or pushing for change in our communities.
Bill recall that Elon Musk understands the science of climate change and only one year ago called for a carbon tax as the solution. He joined Trump because he admired the man after the asassination attempt (pbs nightlynews). Could you get to Musk as a man to admire and turn him back to a path for dealing with climate change. Yes, you. Please. Consider this idea- hos power, his intelligence,for a great good. And from another man of persistence and great good. Yes you.
If I may be so optimistic, what if Japan, Taiwan and India are just saying they will by the dirty LNG, but then don't buy it to buy some time. Or buy small amounts, until the crappy trump admin is done in four years. And if they do buy small amounts, can they just not use it?
Two reasons not to be too enthralled by cheaper renewables - path dependency and corruption. These are interrelated, of course. The first is long apparent and can easily be tilted in favor of clean energy via carbon pricing. But the latter is now on steroids. As a former banker, I was horrified to see Venture Global go public at a $50bn or so valuation (but it has traded poorly in the aftermarket). I searched for a comment on Howarth's lifecycle emissions in the prospectus (I didn't find any). But after reading your post today, Bill, I gave the AI app Perplexity a try on US LNG and the carbon budget. Read and weep below. As NOAA's lights are being turned off, the SEC sets fire to proposed climate disclosure regs, and the Paris AI conference sends the chill down our spines that Twitter + AI + Russia got Trump re-elected - we see here, most likely, corruptible AI:
Robert Howarth's 2024 lifecycle analysis of LNG emissions is not widely accepted or used to estimate the effect of US LNG expansion on the remaining carbon budget for well below 2 degrees. His study has been criticized for containing significant errors and overestimating emissions.
"Several key points regarding Howarth's analysis and its reception:
Errors and overestimation: Howarth's study has been found to overestimate the greenhouse gas intensity of delivered U.S. LNG by 32% to 84% for GWP20 and 30% to 61% for GWP1001.
Contradictory findings: Howarth's conclusions are contradicted by other analyses, including those conducted by the Department of Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) and the National Petroleum Council...
Alternative assessments: The Department of Energy's recent analysis suggests that increased availability of U.S. LNG from 23.7 Bcf/d to 56.3 Bcf/d in 2050 would result in only a 0.05% increase in cumulative global GHG emissions between 2020 and 2050."
Bill, you do more than is humanly possible already...but might you convene an "alliance" of US based climate science and economic modelers who do an annual report using whatever data remains accessible - for 2025-28? Sorry for the long post, but I guess I got the 1984 blues.
The National Petroleum Council is surely a better analytic for petroleum industry pollution! But hey, if you get the benefit and don't bear the costs - just go with it, right? Exxon playbook. US companies are 2/3rds of global market cap (MSCI() with US 4% of population. Our rule of law, intelligence. and integrity have worked. Topple those why...so we can get to 3/4ths? No, that is the road towards under half. Buy our LNG or face tariffs? Competition is overrated...