The commission’s cochair, Agency of Natural Resources Deputy Secretary Peter Walke, sent an email Wednesday seeking members for the commission’s Technical Advisory Group. He wrote that two people would serve as the group’s cochairs: Kevin Jones, professor at Vermont Law School, and Annette Smith, founder of Vermonters for a Clean Environment and a vociferous critic of large-scale wind turbines.
While Jones’ appointment has drawn little controversy, Smith’s has caused at least three prospective TAG members to decline to serve — and prompted a statement of concern from the commission’s sole representative of the environmental community.
Vermont Natural Resources Council energy and climate program director Johanna Miller, a member of the commission, said that naming the two as cochairs “calls into question the independence, transparency and, ultimately, the integrity of the commission.” She called the move “disappointing and disturbing” and called on the administration to revisit “this preemptive decision at the first commission meeting.”
That meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, August 15.
Ben Edgerly Walsh, climate and energy program director for the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, said he rejected an invitation to join TAG because of Smith’s leading role. Walsh’s colleague, VPIRG Energy Independent Vermont campaign director Tom Hughes, also declined. So did Jon Erickson, a University of Vermont professor of ecological economics and, it should be noted, the David Blittersdorf Professor of Sustainability Science & Policy. (Blittersdorf is a prominent developer of renewable energy, including large-scale wind.)
“I don’t think Annette Smith as cochair would be evenhanded given her public record,” Erickson said. “Her advocacy has been against renewable energy.”
Erickson served on a technical advisory committee to a state commission on Lake Champlain, and he noted that such a group should consist of experts, not advocates. “[Smith] is antithetical to what a technical advisory group should be. ‘Technical’ implies objectivity. I’d feel the same way if they appointed Paul Burns,” Erickson said, referring to the VPIRG executive director, who is an advocate for large-scale wind.
Miller and Erickson appear to make valid points. The governor’s executive order creating the CAC charges it with naming “a Technical Advisory Group to provide additional expertise and analysis of technical issues that may be required to fulfill the Commission Charge.”
Smith and Jones were chosen by Walke himself.
When asked why he picked Smith despite her notoriety in pro-renewable circles, he repeatedly ducked the question.
Why Smith? “The goal is to bring everybody to the table,” Walke replied.
Why Smith? “It’s important to know that all voices are being heard. We could have picked anyone.”
But you didn’t. Why Smith? “I would not have agreed to chair this for the governor if I thought we were not going to get to tangible results. The governor gave me the commission to lead, and all decisions were mine. I asked Annette and Kevin to be cochairs.”
Gee, I thought Walke was cochair of the broader commission, along with Paul Costello, executive director of the Vermont Council on Rural Development.
“I’m not really privy to it,” said Costello of the Smith appointment. “As cochair, I’ve talked to the chair about membership, but I haven’t had input into the nominations.”
Look out! Hot potato coming through!
Smith rejects the idea that she’s not an expert. “My areas of expertise are vast,” she said.
Perhaps because of the blowback, Walke is trying to minimize TAG’s importance.
“The goal of the TAG is to be accessible to the commission,” he said. “The only role of the cochairs is to seek out experts when the commission cannot. It’s informal by nature.”
That isn’t what the executive order said, nor is it in line with Erickson’s experience of a technical advisory group as consisting of technical advisors. Or Smith’s expectations, for that matter.
“It’s an extremely limited role,” she said. “I had a thought, based on the executive order, that the group would have some responsibilities. But Kevin and I were told that we’re invited to [commission] meetings and that’s about all.”
At this point, Walke is anxious to put this unfortunate prologue behind him. “We need to get through the first meeting. We need to refocus,” he said.
Part of that refocusing will be earning the trust of environmental advocates, including the one who’s serving on the commission itself.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Mr. Walters omitted the other aspect of the role that I told him when he called me. The co-chairs have been asked to attend the meetings, and at the request of the Commission, find experts, but only if they ask, and all interactions with those experts will be with the CAC co-chairs, not the TAG co-chairs.
It is sad that people who don’t know me and have never worked with me such as Mr. Erickson and Mr. Walsh are interested in going on the attack rather than respecting my 18 years of experience in Vermont working on highly technical issues. Ms. Miller gets a vote, the TAG co-chairs do not, so I do not understand what her beef is.
If we are going to make progress in Vermont, we must find ways to work together. I look forward to doing so, even with people who bring their negative preconceptions.
Annette Smith would be a valuable addition to this board. Annette has the judiciousness to be objective and is a library of knowledge on environmental issues and would use that knowledge ethically for the betterment of this state, people and preservation of our valuable resources. What are the other members of the board afraid of…it won’t be “business as usual?” I”m sure Annette Smith & Kevin Jones will bring only balance and compliment this board….bring them on!
Slightly Orwellian to describe industrial energy lobbying groups like VPIRG and VNRC as “environmental advocates.” VPIRG and VNRC had zero problem with Shumlin’s Public Service Board ignoring multiple Planning Commissions that spent countless hours & tax dollars working with professional planners, wildlife consultants, ecosystems experts, etc. on Act 200 supported Comprehensive Plans. Planning Commissions who stated unequivocally that industrial energy developments do not belong in land zoned for natural resources protection, wildlife corridors and wetlands headwaters. VPIRG and VNRC had no problem with undermining zoning and protections for our open spaces and mountains. No problem with fragmenting habitat.
In the meantime, not a peep from VPIRG and VNRC about global population growth and its environmental impact. You would almost think that David Gelbaum was one of their big donors (yes, the same David Gelbaum who donated $100 million to the Sierra Club on condition that Sierra Club support unlimited population growth and unlimited immigration). In this era of human-caused global warming, it is insane that so-called environmentalists refuse to touch population growth. Few years ago in NY Times, Dr. John Bongaarts, demographer with the Population Council, had this to say: “The global warming community is staying away from anything having to do with population and that’s frustrating.” Ya think?
Annette Smith represents many centrist, independent Vermont residents who believe in protecting our environment in multiple ways and that a single-minded focus on global warming to the exclusion & harm of other aspects of the environment is myopic. And who believe it is wrong to ignore impacts on human health and property values for the profit of crony capitalists who made campaign donations to Montpelier legislators and then helped write the legislation to fast-track their projects. Would love to see VPIRG & VNRC go back to more holistic view. Would regain trust of many & build bridges back to all Vermonters.
The following is the full statement VNRC offered to Mr. Walters for this story. Amber Collett, VNRC Communications Director.
“The Executive Order makes crystal clear that the Commission is charged with convening the Technical Advisory Group. The Commission hasn’t even met yet. The Scott Administration naming chairs, without a Commission conversation about the charge of the TAG, as well as the credible experts that should comprise it, no less chair it, calls into question the independence, transparency and, ultimately, the integrity of the Commission,” said Vermont Natural Resources Council Energy & Climate Program Director Johanna Miller, a member of the Commission. “It’s disappointing and disturbing. We asked for this Commission, and we want it to succeed. Without a fresh start by revisiting this preemptive decision at the first Commission meeting, I fear it’s destined for failure. We’re not interested in political games. We’re interested in good process and real progress. I hope we can get there. Time will tell.”
That corporate modeled environmentalists like VPIRG and VNRC (who want to industrialize the few remaining pristine natural areas), are objecting to Annette Smith, (a reliable advocate of the environment (www.vce.org) who fights to protect the few remaining pristine natural areas) tells us all we need to know about VPIRGs and VNRCs lack of commitment to genuinely protecting our environment, and their unfortunate willingness to join in the morally bankrupt chorus calling for yet more sacrifice of the natural world on the pathological alter of growth to infinity (and beyond!)
I heartily believe in switching to a more benign and genuinely clean and renewable energy supply, but thank you Annette for your reminder of what environmentalists are supposed to be, advocates for the environment, not enablers of gluttonous lifestyles and greenwashers pushing any commercial interest that brands itself as renewable energy even if it does more harm than good to the natural world.
The see no evil, hear no evil mentality about so-called “renewable” energy such as industrial wind towers on pristine ridgelines is the same feel good delusion that promotes burning trees (aka, biomass such as at McNeil), as renewable energy to “help” the climate when in fact this form of energy is even more carbon intense than burning fossil fuels (and yes that includes accounting for forest growth) and is also even dirtier for conventional pollutants. Unfortunately, many people in Vermont have good “green” intentions, but they also are wearing some huge “green” blinders.
It is time to listen to people like Annette who wants to put the genuine health of humans and the natural world ahead of our delusional wishful thinking in pursuit of egotistical and infinite personal goals, because if we dont, we wont have any environment left to save.
Chris Matera PE
Massachusetts Forest Watch
I am curious to know what credentials Annette Smith has that she has been chosen for this role. What is her academic and work background? Is she a person of science and fact?
Far from being “against renewable energy”, Annette Smith actually lives off grid. That VPIRG’s climate and energy program director and UVM’s David Blittersdorf Professor of Sustainability Science & Policy declined to join this board if Smith is on it rather reveals their reluctance to face the real environmentalist.
When I look at the “pristine” ridgeline I don’t see many wind turbines, but I see miles of wide clear cut channels for power lines and new ones being cut every day. Why is one type of environmental destruction acceptable while a less intrusive one isn’t? There’s no discussion about the scars from the power lines in our forests while the idea of one turbine drives the low information folks nuts!
I have no dog in this fight, since I’m in New Hampshire, but I know Kevin Jones and Annette Smith well enough to say that having them co-chair the Technical Advisory Group is both intriguing and refreshing. What the skeptics overlook is the synergistic combination they represent: Kevin is an economist who knows what utilities are like from the inside, and Annette is a grassroots activist who has done years of intense homework as an outsider. From the other side of the Connecticut River, refusals to work with them look odd indeed. I guess our political realities in NH are such that we have to err on the side of inclusion and showing up, even at the risk of collaborating with someone with whom we have serious disagreements.
Part of being an effective advocate is being able to propose practical solutions to real world issues. Thus far, I haven’t heard any from Ms. Smith. So, Ms. Smith, if you actually have practical, workable solutions to the problems that you have with seemingly every kind of large scale renewable energy production, I’m all ears.
Annette Smith’s “advocacy has been against renewable energy.” ?? No, Annette Smith’s advocacy has been advocating for intelligent renewable energy rather than stupid renewable energy (which ends up not even being renewable due to the devastation of the environment it is causing- mountain top removal, then putting in wind turbines that not only make people and animals sick, but don’t even do a very good job- watch the documentary Windfall- is NOT renewable energy). Pointing out that solar energy causes dirty electricity which is harmful to people and animals is not a crime if it’s true, and it’s true. Annette is not owned by any corporations. That’s a big plus. SMH.
David Blittersdorf is the fox in the henhouse.
Kudos to David Blittersdorf Professor of Sustainability Science & Policy Erickson for pointing out the need for objectivity in leading the Technical Advisory Group!
Its hard to imagine that Annette Smith, who has lived on an off-the-grid, solar-powered farm for decades, could ever be an impartial voice on the subject of renewable energy.
Hopefully Deputy Secretary Walke will reach back out to impartial experts on objectivity such as David Blittersdorf Professor of Sustainability Science & Policy Erickson. We owe it to ourselves to find the type of objective leadership that Blitterdorfian Sustainable Science & Policy experts can endorse!
This says more about Mr. Walsh, Mr. Hughes, and Mr. Erickson, than it does Ms. Smith. As the saying goes, the most important thing is just “showing up”. What are they afraid of?
They seem to acknowledge that they likely have no winning arguments, because they won’t even participate.
I’d like to remind everyone that Annette was named Vermonter of the Year by the Free Press for her knowledge and tireless efforts. She is eminently qualified. Her combined expertise on both State regulations and energy matters actually make her one of the most experienced.
If Vermont is ever going to function sustainably, it’s people like Annette who “walks the talk” that will get us there.
Why not just invite Charles Koch then? what a joke.