DOCSLIB.ORG

TETF 40,000 Recommendations 30,000 Current Funding 20,000 10,000 0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
TETF 40,000 Recommendations 30,000 Current Funding 20,000 10,000 0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Thermal Efficiency Task Force Analysis and Recommendations A Report to the Vermont General Assembly Meeting the Thermal Efficiency Goals for Vermont Buildings January 2013 Thermal Efficiency Task Force Members Debra Baslow, VT Bldgs & General Services Dept. Emily Levin, Efficiency Vermont Joseph Bergeron, Association of VT Credit Unions Sandra Levine, Conservation Law Foundation Kathy Beyer, Housing Vermont John Lincoln, Burlington Electric Dept. Ludy Biddle, NeighborWorks of Western VT Stu McGowan, private property owner Paul Biebel, Biebel Builders Jim Merriam, Efficiency Vermont Andrew Boutin, Pellergy LLC Elizabeth Miller, VT Public Service Dept. Allan Bullis, Common Sense Energy Johanna Miller, VT Natural Resources Council Chris Burns, Burlington Electric Dept. Wayne Nelson, LN Consulting Scott Campbell, CVCAC Craig Peltier, VT Housing & Conservation Board Tom Candon, VT Dept. of Financial Regulation Andrew Perchlik, VT Public Service Dept. Phil Cecchini, CVCAC Jay Pilliod, Efficiency Vermont Diana Chace, Conservation Law Foundation TJ Poor, VT Public Service Dept. Andrea Colnes, Energy Action Network John Quinney, Energy Co‐op of Vermont Matt Cota, Vermont Fuel Dealers Association Ajith Rao, Regulatory Assistance Project Neil Curtis, Efficiency Vermont Chuck Reiss, Reiss Building and Renovation Edward Delhagen, VT Public Service Dept. Bill Root, GWR Engineering Chris D'Elia, VT Bankers Association, Inc. Harald Schmidtke, SEVCA Norm Etkind, School Energy Management Program Gus Seelig, VT Housing & Conservation Board Richard Faesy, Energy Futures Group Andy Shapiro, Energy Balance Brian Fisher, Vermont Gas Eileen Simollardes, Vermont Gas Jeff Forward, Forward Consultants Gabrielle Stebbins, Renewable Energy Vermont Scott Gardner, Building Energy Gaye Symington, High Meadows Fund Chris Granda, Grasteu Assoc. / One Change Tom Thacker, BROC Malcolm Gray, Montpelier Construction, LLC George Twigg, Efficiency Vermont Bret Hamilton, Shelter Analytics, LLC Matthew Walker, VT Public Service Dept. Scott Harrington, Vermont Gas Ben Walsh, VT Public Interest Research Group Bob Hedden, Hedden Co. / Oilheat Associates Chris West, Eco Houses of Vermont Tim Heney, Heney Realtors Brent Whitney, I Land Energy, Inc. Karen Horne, Vermont Gas Geoff Wilcox, VT Office of Economic Opportunity Barry Hulce, Efficiency Vermont Chris Williams, HeatSpring Learning Institute Ray Keller, Vermont Gas Jennifer Wood, CVOEO Jeremy King, Vermont Gas Paul Zabriskie, CVCAC Kelly Launder, VT Public Service Dept. Thermal Efficiency Task Force Subcommittee Chairs Energy Service Providers – Barry Hulce, Efficiency Vermont Residential Single‐Family Services – Emily Levin, Efficiency Vermont Multifamily – Neil Curtis, Efficiency Vermont Commercial and Industrial – Ray Keller, Vermont Gas Renewable Energy – Gabrielle Stebbins, Renewable Energy Vermont Finance and Funding – Richard Faesy, Energy Futures Group Planning and Measurement – Ben Walsh, VT Public Interest Research Group Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose of the Task Force ............................................................................................................. 1 1.1.1 Program / services assessment ............................................................................................ 2 1.1.2 Program delivery and coordination development / improvement ...................................... 2 1.1.3 Financing and funding assessment ....................................................................................... 3 1.1.4 Measurement and tracking development ............................................................................ 4 1.2 Historical Perspective on Energy Efficiency .................................................................................. 4 1.2.1 Vermont’s thermal energy consumption and costs ............................................................. 5 1.2.2 Overview of existing thermal efficiency services ................................................................. 7 1.2.3 The real value of thermal efficiency and renewables .......................................................... 8 1.3 Concurrent Efforts ....................................................................................................................... 10 1.3.1 Energy Action Network ....................................................................................................... 10 1.3.2 Interviews of home performance and heating industry professionals .............................. 11 1.3.3 PSD process and impact evaluation of thermal efficiency programs ................................. 11 1.3.4 Market research ................................................................................................................. 11 1.3.5 NeighborWorks of Western Vermont ................................................................................ 12 2. Task Force Considerations and Process Recommendations .......................................................... 12 2.1 Core Principles ............................................................................................................................ 12 2.2 Cross‐cutting Recommendations ................................................................................................ 14 2.2.1 Coordinated clearinghouse ................................................................................................ 14 2.2.2 Consumer education and marketing .................................................................................. 15 2.2.3 Training ............................................................................................................................... 16 2.2.4 Increase energy code compliance for additions, repairs, and renovations consistent with new construction compliance ............................................................................................................. 17 2.2.5 Building labeling ................................................................................................................. 18 2.2.6 Review role and intersection of historic preservation ....................................................... 18 2.3 Energy Service Providers ............................................................................................................. 19 2.3.1 Background and context of the subcommittee’s recommendations ................................. 21 2.3.2 A positive value proposition ............................................................................................... 24 2.3.3 Workforce development: Capability and capacity ............................................................. 25 2.3.4 Recommendations of the Energy Service Providers Subcommittee .................................. 26 2.3.5 Budget for effective implementation of the Energy Service Providers Subcommittee recommendations ............................................................................................................................... 31 2.3.6 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 31 3. Market Sector Analysis and Recommendations ............................................................................ 32 3.1 Residential Single‐Family ............................................................................................................ 32 3.1.1 Background and context for the subcommittee’s recommendations ............................... 32 3.1.2 Residential single‐family sector contribution to the 80,000‐unit goal ............................... 33 3.1.3 Single‐family market sector contribution to the energy reduction goal ............................ 35 3.1.4 Analysis of program gaps and customer barriers to participation ..................................... 36 3.1.5 Recommendations: Low‐income single‐family market segment ....................................... 39 3.1.6 Recommendations: Market‐rate single‐family market segment ....................................... 40 3.1.7 Recommendations: Program implementation ................................................................... 42 3.1.8 Recommendations: Policy / regulatory / legislative ........................................................... 48 3.2 Multifamily Market Sector .......................................................................................................... 52 3.2.1 Background and context for recommendations ................................................................ 55 3.2.2 Recommendations: Policy / regulatory / legislative ........................................................... 55 3.2.3 Recommendations: Program implementation ................................................................... 59 3.2.4 Recommendations: Collaboration and coordination ......................................................... 63 3.2.5 Recommendations: Funding and financing ........................................................................ 63 3.3 Commercial and Industrial Market Sector .................................................................................. 65 3.3.1 Background ........................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Financing Clean Energy: a FACT SHEET Powerful Tool for Driving Investment in Vermont’S Economy
    Financing Clean Energy: A FACT SHEET Powerful Tool for Driving Investment in Vermont’s Economy By encouraging private-sector investment in renewable energy products that support the development of clean energy and energy efficiency, strategies to finance clean energy are projects. Just as important, these programs raise awareness of playing an important role in transforming clean energy markets clean energy technologies and their benefits. Already New in the United States and other countries. Institutions that run York’s and Connecticut’s green banks and Rhode Island’s state clean energy financing programs can provide Infrastructure Bank are aiding the transition from government underwriting support, facilitate conversations with key incentives for clean energy to financial products funded stakeholders, and educate the public and lenders on primarily with private-sector capital. And many more states, technological options. including Vermont, have developed related loan programs for Based on the experiences of existing clean energy financing efficiency and renewable energy.1 initiatives, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) has Typically, the performance of a clean energy financing analyzed the potential impact of expanded clean energy initiative is measured as a leverage ratio of private-sector to financing capacity in Vermont. According to this analysis, the public-sector funds invested. For example, Connecticut and state could leverage an initial capitalization of $7 million into a New York have achieved an average leverage ratio across their $148 million investment in renewable energy and energy programs of more than $5 of private funds to every $1 of public efficiency projects over the next 15 years. funds over recent years (Shrago and Healey 2016; NY Green Bank 2016; Connecticut Green Bank 2016).
    [Show full text]
  • From: Wilkinson, Eric
    From: Wilkinson, Eric [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11:13 AM To: Margolis, Anne Cc: McNamara, Ed; [email protected]; Krolewski, Mary-Jo Subject: VEGSPC Comments from ISO New England Hello, Please accept the attached comments from ISO New England. Do not hesitate to contact me if I can provide any more information to the Commission. Regards, Eric Wilkinson External Affairs ISO New England One Sullivan Road Holyoke, MA 01040 Office 413.540.4686 Mobile 413.387.7197 Fax 413.535.4379 [email protected] Please consider the impact to the environment and your responsibility before printing this e-mail. memo To: Vermont Energy Generation Siting Policy Commission From: Eric Wilkinson Date: January 30, 2013 Subject: Comments of ISO New England ISO New England (ISO) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments to the Vermont Energy Generation Siting Policy Commission (Commission). The ISO is a private, non-profit entity that serves as the regional transmission organization for New England. The ISO operates the New England bulk power system and administers New England’s organized wholesale electricity markets. Planning the bulk power system is also key a responsibility of the ISO. Part of this planning responsibility includes studying the potential reliability impacts of proposed new generation resources on the bulk power system. This is an important function as the ISO is responsible for maintaining reliability and must meet regional and national reliability criteria. The purpose of these comments is to make the Commission aware of the ISO’s role in the interconnection of energy generation resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Biennial Update of the Net-Metering Program Order Entered
    STATE OF VERMONT PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION Case No. 18-0086-INV In re: biennial update of the net-metering program Order entered: 05/01/2018 Table of Contents I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 II. Procedural History ................................................................................................................... 5 III. Background and Legal Framework ......................................................................................... 5 IV. Summary of Stakeholder Comments ..................................................................................... 13 V. REC Adjustor Factors ............................................................................................................ 28 VI. Siting Adjustor Factors .......................................................................................................... 50 VII. Determination of the Statewide Blended Residential Rate ................................................... 55 VIII. Other Issues ....................................................................................................................... 56 IX. Order ...................................................................................................................................... 59 I. INTRODUCTION In 2017, the Vermont Public Utility Commission (“Commission”) adopted a net-metering rule consistent with the following statutory directives: (1) advance Vermont’s ambitious
    [Show full text]
  • Energy Planning & Implementation Guidebook for Vermont Communities
    Energy Planning & Implementation Guidebook for Vermont Communities April 2011 Vermont’s Energy Mix Vermont’s heaviest energy use is in commercial and industrial enterprises and the transportation sector. Without a significant shift in the way that Vermont uses energy and the sources by which we obtain it, the state will fall short in meeting its energy efficiency, renewable energy and climate action goals. Electric: 49% MoGas: Fuel Oil: 80% 26% Other Petro: 16% Diesel: Nat’l Gas: 7% 17% Jet Fuel: Renewables: 3% 2% Electric: 66% Other Petro: 3% Nat’l Gas: Fuel Oil: 11% 9% Renewables: 11% Source: Vermont Public Service Department Vermont’s Energy Consumption By Category Vermont’s energy consumption has risen significantly from 1960 to 2005, most notably in the transportation and electrical sectors. Without reducing consumption and increasing investments and activity in conservation and efficiency, it’s likely those numbers will continue to rise. 180,000 Other (including wood) 160,000 Transportation 140,000 Electricity (before conversion losses) 120,000 100,000 80,000 BTUs (billions) 60,000 Natural Gas LPG (Propane) 40,000 20,000 Distillate (non-transportation) 0 1960 1963 1966 1969 1972 1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 Source: Vermont Public Service Department Energy Planning and Implementation Guidebook for Vermont Communities April 2011 Table of Contents Chapter I. Why Prepare an Energy Plan Page 3 Planning to Meet Vermont’s Energy Goals Page 4. How to Use this Guidebook Page 4. Chapter II. Introduction to Local Energy Planning in Vermont Page 5 Vermont’s Planning Framework Page 5 Vermont’s State Planning & Development Goals Page 6 Roles, Responsibilities, and Relationships Page 6 Chapter III.
    [Show full text]
  • Wind Energy & Wind Park Siting and Zoning Best Practices And
    2012 Wind Energy & Wind Park Siting and Zoning Best Practices and Guidance for States NARUC Grants & Research January 2012 NARUC The National Association A report for the Minnesota Public Utilities of Regulatory Commission Funded by the U.S. Department of Utility Energy Commissioners The report you are reading was created under the State Electricity Regulators Capacity Assistance and Training (SERCAT) program, a project of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) Grants & Research Department. This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Number DE-OE0000123. The report was authored by Tom Stanton. Throughout the preparation process, the members of NARUC provided the author(s) with editorial comments and suggestions. However, the views and opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the author(s) and may not necessarily agree with positions of NARUC or those of the U.S. Department of Energy. Special thanks to the Commissioners and staff at the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission for guiding this work, and to the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability and the National Energy Technology Lab for their continued technical assistance to NARUC. Please direct questions regarding this report to Miles Keogh, NARUC’s Director of Grants & Research, [email protected]; (202) 898-2200. Disclaimer: This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.
    [Show full text]
  • Renewable Energy in M Ch Garl
    Renewable Energy in M ch garl Summary A skilled workforce, supportive policies, and significant renewable energy resource development have positioned Michigan to become an important U.S. hub for clean energy production. Michigan's incentives rank among the most effective in the country for attracting clean energy manufacturing and R&D. According to a study released in early 2012 by the Michigan Public Service Commission, the state's renewable portfolio standard has led to more than 100 MW of added renewable capacity, $100 million in investments, and has significantly reduced the cost of new, renewable energy since 2008. nstalledx. Renewable Energy Capacity, 2011 377 MW Ocean 0 MW Soles Photovoltaic 9 MW Biomass Power 476 MW Concentrated Solar Thermal 0 MW Bioethanol 268 mGy Geothermal 0 MW Biodiesel 50 mGy Hydropower 383 MW Totals 1,245 MW; 318 mGy Estimated capacity as of December 31, 2011; see User's Guide for details. Market • Michigan's wind market has grown from 2.6 MW in 2006 to 487 MW in mid-2012. The 213 MW Gratiot County Wind Project became operational in Summer 2012 and generates enough electricity to power more than 50,000 Michigan homes. • Michigan invests in research and development programs that support growing companies and create high-tech jobs. The state of Michigan and Michigan universities are presently establishing and conducting R&D programs with the state's bioenergy, solar, wind, and other companies, often in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Energy and its National Laboratories. • At least six anaerobic digestion facilities have been set up at dairy and swine farms in the state, with a joint capacity of 3.7 MW.
    [Show full text]
  • Forest Biomass and Bioenergy: Opportunities and Constraints in the Northeastern United States
    Forest Biomass and Bioenergy: Opportunities and Constraints in the Northeastern United States Principal authors: Thomas Buchholz1, PhD, Senior Consultant Charles D. Canham2, PhD, Senior Scientist, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies Contributing author: Steven P. Hamburg3, PhD, Environmental Defense Fund February 17, 2011 Author Contact Information: 1The Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, 343 Aiken Center University of Vermont, 81 Carrigan Drive, Burlington, VT 05405; phone (802) 881‐5590; email: [email protected] 2Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Box AB, Millbrook, NY 12545; phone (845) 677‐7600 ext. 139; e‐mail: [email protected] 3Environmental Defense Fund, 18 Tremont Street, Boston, MA 02108; phone (617) 406‐ 1832; e‐mail [email protected] Northeastern Forest Biomass Energy EXECUTIVE SUMMARY There has been enormous interest in the use of forest biomass for energy in the Northeastern US. Both the federal government and most states in the region are actively engaged in assessments of the potential role of forest biomass in renewable energy standards and portfolios. This study addressed two critical components of those assessments: • the amount of biomass that can be sustainably harvested from Northeastern forests for energy purposes, and • which conversion technologies and end‐use applications should be pursued to most effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions, reduce dependence on foreign oil, and promote the rural economy of the region. Our analyses relied on data on forest biomass supply from the U.S.D.A. Forest Service Forest Inventory Analysis (FIA) program and the Timber Products Output (TPO) database, and on data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) for the energy analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Update to 2018-2020 Triennial Plan
    Revised 2019 Update to the Triennial Plan 2018–2020 Prepared for the Vermont Public Utility Commission April 2019 by Vermont Energy Investment Corporation 128 Lakeside Avenue Burlington, VT 05401 This document is presented to the Vermont Public Utility Commission and to the Vermont Department of Public Service, in fulfillment of the This document is presented to the Vermont Public Utility Commissionregulatory and requirement to the Vermont to submit Department an overview of Public of EfficiencyService, in fulfillment Vermont’s of the regulatory requirement to submit an overview of Efficiency2018–2020 Vermont’s strategy 2018–2020 for providing strategy energyfor providing efficiency energy services. efficiency services. This annual (2019) update of the triennial plan fulfills the regulatory requirement for reporting any changes, modifications and updates or variations to the content summarizedEfficiency in the triennial Vermontplan. 2018–2020 Triennial Plan | 11 Power through 2018–2020 Goals Partnership $687 million A message from Rebecca Foster, 1 Director, Efficiency Vermont saved by Vermonters 1Lifetime customer savings from 2018-2020 efficiency investments As we enter the second year of Efficiency the Vermont Agency of Commerce and Vermont’s 2018-2020 plan for delivering Community Development (ACCD), and energy services to Vermonters, the critical role the Vermont Department of Public Service of partnerships is emerging in every aspect of (Department) to design and launch a new $200 million in revenue our work. pilot program that will enable businesses to invest their energy dollars in innovative new for local businesses We find more and more that the energy approaches to energy management that go landscape in Vermont is changing -- beyond electric efficiency measures.
    [Show full text]
  • Usa Wind Energy Resources
    USA WIND ENERGY RESOURCES © M. Ragheb 2/7/2021 “An acre of windy prairie could produce between $4,000 and $10,000 worth of electricity per year.” Dennis Hayes INTRODUCTION Wind power accounted for 6 percent of the USA’s total electricity generation capacity, compared with 19 percent for Nuclear Power generation. A record 13.2 GWs of rated wind capacity were installed in 2012 including 5.5 GWs in December 2012, the most ever for a single month. The total rated wind capacity stands at about 60 GWs. Utilities are buying wind power because they want to, not because they have to, to benefit from the Production Tax Credit PTC incentive. The credit has been extended for a year to cover wind farms that start construction in 2013. Previously it only covered projects that started working by the expiration date. Asset financing for USA wind farms was $4.3 billion in the second-half compared with $9.6 billion in the first six months of 2012. Component makers are the General Electric Company (GE), Siemens AG, Vestas AS, Gamesa Corp Tecnologica SA and Clipper Windpower Ltd., which is owned by Platinum Equity LLC. Equipment prices for wind have dropped by more than 21 percent since 2010, and the performance of turbines has risen. This has resulted in a 21 percent decrease in the overall cost of electricity from wind for a typical USA project since 2010. From 2006 to 2012 USA domestic manufacturing facilities for wind turbine components has grown 12 times to more than 400 facilities in 43 states.
    [Show full text]
  • Vermont Energy & Climate Summit
    Vermont Energy & Climate Summit “Meeting Vermont’s 2025 Energy and Climate Goals” Policy Pitches Report Volume 1 – Pitches Presented at the Summit November 8, 2017 Table of Contents Executive Summary Volume 1: Policy Pitches Presented at the Summit - Summary List of Pitches Presented at the Summit………………………… 5 - Pitch 1 - Charge Ahead Vermont: EV Transformation……………………… 7 - Pitch 2 - Big Buses, Big Opportunity………………………………………….. 13 - Pitch 3 - Cap, Trade and Invest: Transportation……………………………. 17 - Pitch 4 - Home-Grown Renewable Heat………………………………….……. 24 - Pitch 5 - Using “Feebates” to Drive Cleaner Energy………………………. 49 - Pitch 6 - Renewable Fuels Standard……………………………………….….. 53 - Pitch 7 - Warm Home Program: Bond for Expanded Weatherization...… 57 - Pitch 8 - Sustainable Energy for Vermonters: Overcoming Barriers to Low- Income Access…………………………………………………………………..… 64 - Pitch 9 - Harnessing Energy Storage for Local Clean Energy, Jobs & Grid Resiliency…………………………………………………………… 68 - Pitch 10 - Vermont Climate Action Communities………………………….. 78 - Pitch 11 - Emphasize and Improve Tier III…………………………………… 82 - Pitch 12 - Heat and Transportation Efficiency Utilities…………………… 85 - Pitch 13 - The ESSEX Plan: An Economy Strengthening Strategic Energy Exchange………………………………………………………………….. 90 Appendices Key Vermont Energy & Emissions Graphs…………………………………… 112 Summit Agenda…………………………………………………………………….. 115 Policy Pitch Form………………………………………………………….……….. 116 Questions to each of the Summit Presentations……………………………. 119 Volume 2: Additional Written Policy Pitches - Summary
    [Show full text]
  • Light Industrial/Commercial Park
    TOWN OF JOHNSON LIGHT INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL PARK Prepared for Final Report: Light Industrial/ Commercial Park Development in Johnson, Vermont Town of Johnson 293 Lower Main West PO Box 383 June, 2012 Johnson, Vermont 05656 Prepared by Yellow Wood Associates, Inc. 228 North Main St. St. Albans, Vermont 05478 [This page intentionally left blank.] Final Report on Light Industrial/Commercial Park Development in Johnson, Vermont Table of Contents A Story of Rural Industrial Park Development ........................................................................ 4 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... 5 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 14 Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 14 Agribusiness, Food Processing and Technology .................................................................... 15 National, Regional and Local Trends ............................................................................................................................. 15 Workforce Needs ................................................................................................................................................................... 18 Space and Infrastructure Needs .....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Senate: Kentucky: Leans Republican Mcconnell (R-Inc) Vs
    A M i n u t e - by- Minute Analysis of Which Races To Watch and Why You Should Watch Them By Arjun Jaikumar (brownsox) 6:00 EST Presidential: 1 Safe McCain: Kentucky (8) 1 Toss Up: Indiana (11) Senate: Kentucky: Leans Republican McConnell (R-inc) vs. Lunsford (D) Governor: Indiana: Likely Republican Daniels (R-inc) vs. Long Thompson (D) House: KY-02: Leans Republican Guthrie (R-open) vs. Boswell (D) KY-03: Likely Democratic Northup (R) vs. Yarmuth (D-inc) IN-03: Lean Republican Souder (R-inc) vs. Montagano (D) IN-09: Lean Democratic Sodrel (R) vs. Hill (D-inc) Polls close in Kentucky and Indiana in the eastern parts of the state at 6 EST. Polls in the CST part of the states reportedly will not close until 7:00 EST. Nevertheless, some of the earliest returns will come in from Kentucky and Indiana, so here’s how to read them as a barometer for the election. Presidential - Indiana The presidential contest has not been especially close here for several elections. The last time Indiana was too close to call when polls closed was during Bill Clinton’s 370-electoral-vote landslide in 1992. Even then, Clinton wound up losing the state by a significant margin. If Indiana is announced too close to call when polls close this year, it will be an indicator that Barack Obama is headed for a similar landslide victory himself, even if he isn’t quite able to carry the state. If Obama wins Indiana, you can start popping the champagne corks. While it doesn’t get him to 270 (when added to the Kerry states), it puts him just seven short, and victory in any one of Iowa, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Colorado, Missouri (or in both Nevada and New Mexico) would win the election for him.
    [Show full text]