To the Editor Reformer: Ian Buchanan’s April 29 letter (“Does 100% Renewable Energy Standard make sense for Vermont?”) is a misreading of Vermont’s landmark law cutting greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to taking 250,000 cars off the road by 2035.

Contrary to Mr. Buchanan’s claim, Vermont, like the rest of New England, has many proven, safe and affordable options to fossil fuel generated electricity, namely solar power, energy storage, local hydropower, and on and off shore wind.

Here’s just one example out of many: if the 3,500 MW of offshore wind that’s planned for New England had been on the grid during the 2024-25 winter, ratepayers would have saved $400 million on energy costs by displacing dirty and expensive natural gas and oil plants.

Mr. Buchanan states that Vermont should be exploring “clean” energy options instead of renewables. But don’t be fooled — “clean” is the nuclear industry’s greenwashing of their expensive power which cannot be delivered as safely, quickly or cheaply to Vermonters as the renewable energy like wind, solar and local hydropower.

For these reasons and more, Vermonters should be very proud of our 100 percent Renewable Energy Standard.

Peter Sterling, director

Renewable Energy Vermont, April 30