Public Service Commissioner: Vermont Green Energy Plan Not About Global Warming. Guest post by Bruce Parker

By Bruce Parker  /   October 23, 2015

As Vermont races to become the nation’s first green-energy economy, the head of the Public Service Department says the state’s renewable energy plan is about economic matters, not global warming.

On Wednesday, the Vermont Public Service Department completed the third of five public hearings for the state’s 2015 Comprehensive Energy Plan. The 380-page document, set to be completed and adopted by Jan. 1, charts a course for Vermont to get 90 percent of its energy from renewables by 2050.

While Vermonters are struggling to see the benefit in siting hundreds of utility-scale solar and wind projects in neighborhoods and atop mountain ridgelines, the benefit most commonly associated with embracing green energy — combating global warming — is conspicuously absent from Vermont’s plan.

“I disagree with the characterization that the reason we’re doing this is to try and improve global warming,” Chris Recchia, commissioner of the Public Service Department, told Vermont Watchdog.

“It is certainly a byproduct of it, and a help, but primarily why we’re doing it is to have stable energy pricing and really secure energy resources that are renewable in our state.”

Recchia, appointed by Gov. Peter Shumlin in 2013 to lead the department responsible for regulating energy development, said Vermont is too small to make a difference in the nation’s carbon footprint. As result, the commissioner says Vermont needs to embrace an all-renewable-energy future to have a strong economy, a stable energy supply and stable energy pricing.

“If everybody else in the United States and around the world did what we’re doing, it would have a tremendous impact on climate change. The problem is we can only do what we can do,” he said.

Since Shumlin made renewable energy a top priority of the state, towns have found themselves fighting green-energy companies eager to profit from taxpayer subsidies and regulation-free land use policies.

Swanton, which is battling a proposal from Swanton Wind LLC to construct seven 500-foot wind turbines on a local ridgeline, has scheduled a Nov. 17 townwide vote to give residents a say in the matter.

“We’re definitely against it. The Selectboard, we do not support this project. We are for renewable energy if it’s the right thing for our communities, but this is not the right thing for our communities,” Swanton Selectboard Chair Dan Billado told Vermont Watchdog.

“These towers are 100 feet or more taller than any turbines in New England — they’re 499 feet. That equates to 50-story structures on a ridgeline that’s already a 345-foot ridgeline above the lake. Tell me anywhere in Vermont where we have 50-story structures.”

On the year’s windy days, the project will provide power to an estimated 7,800 homes. Despite that benefit, Billado said people in the town are worried about the project’s negative effect on wildlife, public health, water quality, property values and aesthetics.

“We already know that windmills kill birds and bats. It’s devastating on that, not to mention the rest of the wild animals — deer, bear, coon, fox, you name it,” he said. “It drives them away. They say they’ll come back, but nobody can give us an answer when.”

At the town’s Tuesday night Selectboard meeting, more than 50 residents met with Recchia to express concerns about the turbines. According to Billado, when the board asked for a show of hands to see how many people opposed the project, all but five people threw up their hands.

“The five people for it were Mr. Belisle, his wife, his lawyer, and, I believe, his sister and brother-in-law that were there — they’re the developers.”

Billado said the vote could have as big a turnout as the Oct.1 vote in Irasburg, which saw residents fill Town Hall to overflowing to vote 274-9 against 500-foot windmills on the Kidder Hill ridgeline west of the village center. Although non-binding, such townwide votes send a loud message that developers need to go someplace else.

RELATED: Revolt: Vermont town votes 274-9 against giant wind turbines

Vermont Watchdog asked Recchia if towns could be expected to sacrifice their landscapes for a plan

Chris Recchia
Commissioner
DPS

that offers negligible environmental benefits and significant environmental damage.

“It is not a huge sacrifice compared to what the people of West Virginia have been dealing with for 100 years in terms of coal mining and mountaintop removal and a variety of other things. It just is not the same scale,” he said.

For environmentally minded Vermonters, Recchia’s perspectives may seem out of touch.

“To say, ‘OK, it’s really about having stable energy prices; it isn’t about having some sort of impact — even local — on global climate change,’ you’re missing the boat with me,” said Michael Keane, a Selectboard member in the Town of Bennington.

“Prices are always going to go up and down. There’s not going to be any absolute control of prices. … If all we’re thinking of is stable prices, we’ve let ourselves be horse-traded in sort of a Wild West situation.”

The “Wild West” in Bennington includes a plan to clear-cut 27 acres of forest for a two-plot solar farm in the Apple Hill residential area along Route 7, within eyeshot of the town’s welcome center.

The project’s developer, New York City-based Allco Renewable Energy, angered residents when the CEO criticized a Bennington woman who decided to intervene against the project due to aesthetic and procedural concerns. In 2010, the CEO himself campaigned to stop an offshore wind farm from being sited in Nantucket Sound near his summer home in Martha’s Vineyard.

In August, the Bennington Selectboard voted against the arrays due to “the inevitable damage to environmental, historical, safety, visual, and aesthetics of the surroundings.” Two weeks ago, board members sent the Public Service Board a letter saying its decisions “appeared to ride roughshod” over the concerns of the people of Bennington.

Recchia may be listening to towns’ complaints. He said he would oppose “random applications being submitted by developers that don’t have any relationship to what towns and communities want.” He also said he would work to help residents “be part of the solution and really engage in the process.”

Going forward, Recchia said the department plans to enlist all regional planning commissions in the state to conduct smart energy planning with communities in the upcoming year.

Swanton needs answers sooner rather than later, according to Billado.

“When they start blasting ridgelines, what’s that do to surrounding wells? You’re fracking the ground (and) breaking up flows of water that feed people’s wells. What’s that going to do to everybody’s drinking water? Nobody knows. They say they have to do studies,” he said.

According to Keane, if the state’s energy plan is about economic issues, Vermonters need to rethink the real benefits of moving forward.

“If we’re doing this for stable energy prices in the year 2020 or 2030, then let people know that. Let’s disabuse them of the goodwill intentions that they have to have a benefit on the environment,” he said.

“If, in fact, we are not having some sort of useful impact on the environment that we can either have bragging rights about or be thought of as a model for other political entities, then what the hell are we doing?”

-------

Bruce Parker

This post by Bruce Parker first appeared in Vermont Watchdog, October 23, and is reprinted here by permission. Parker has frequent guest posts at this blog: his most recent guest post was Vermont town protests renewable energy credits for MA and CT.

You can reach Bruce Parker at bparker@watchdog.org

Overselling Renewables: The Northwest and Here

Visiting the wind turbines
Lempster NH

Overselling Renewables: Northwest Version

I also blog at Northwest Clean Energy. Many of my posts are in support of Columbia Generating Station, the nuclear plant owned by Energy Northwest.

A professor at Stanford, Mark Z. Jacobson, promulgated an untested vision for using wind, water and solar (not even any biomass) for ALL the energy requirements of the entire country, by 2050. Yes, electricity, transportation, heating, industrial energy…all by wind, water, and solar.

Jacobson's SolutionsProject promotes this untested vision.  The project team is headed by an Executive Director, as most not-for-profits include. The other team members are a Creative Director, a Producer and a State Program director.  Creative Director? Producer? Well, I suppose, if  you haven't got facts, you need showmanship.

Jacobson writes his (basically fictional) report on a state by state basis.  My most recent post at Energy Northwest blog examines his ideas for Washington State: If more wind is the answer, what was the question? There are some nice comments on the post. I hope you will read it.

Overselling Renewables: Local Version

All over the country,  anti-nuclear people adore Jacobson's fictions.  For example, one of the commentators on this Boston Globe article about Pilgrim closing refers to Jacobson's words on renewables-for-Massachusetts as the reason we don't need Pilgrim.  (Alas, I can't find the comment now, but I read it yesterday. There are 98 comments as I write this post.)

Meanwhile, Vermont has a 90% percent renewables-for-everything "plan" that is only slightly less aggressive than Jacobson's ideas. Vermont only goes to 90% renewables, not 100%. Also, Vermont allows biomass. For an up-to-date look at how this plan is being accepted by the people of Vermont (it's pretty much hated), read Bruce Parker at Vermont Watchdog.

Parker went to a review meeting about the Vermont green energy plan. At that meeting, the Vermont Department of Public Service spokesman admitted the Vermont plan would have no effect on global warming, and also said that the Vermont plan was not aimed at setting an example to the world.

The spokesman faced angry Vermonters who don't know why we are covering our ridges with big roads and wind turbines, if it isn't going to do any good anyway.  Read Parker's report Vermont's green energy plan to have no impact on global warming. (The report has 198 comments as I write this post).

Note: Parker has had several guest posts at this blog, for example: Vermont town protests renewable energy credits for MA and CT

Overselling Renewables, National Version

Renewables are being oversold all over.

Meanwhile, nuclear power is demonized. Nuclear is the largest provider of low-carbon electricity in the United States.

Perhaps some day, we will wake up.  I hope so.

The Solar View from Vermont: The Gold Rush and the Panels.

Andrew Savage of All Earth Renewables
describes a Vermont solar installation
to Energy Safari class, 2011
Blog post on our visit   to the solar installation
Robert Hargraves blog post on our visit

The Solar Gold Rush

At VTDigger, Erin Mansfield wrote a two-part special report on solar. It is well worth reading.

Part 1: Tax breaks drive Vermont solar gold rush
Part 2: Rural communities push back against solar

The first part includes a summary of how solar developers make money: basically, they make money through tax credits.

The second part describes how some Vermont senators tried to give the local towns more say in solar siting. They did not succeed at empowering the towns.  It doesn't matter what the local people think: the Public Service Board rules on solar siting.

I also recommend the comments on these posts.

A Quote: 100,000 acres

When I came back from my trip to England, I discovered that Erin Mansfield had called me.  By the time I called her back, it was too late be quoted in her excellent report on the solar gold rush.

However, Mansfield had looked up my post The 90% Solution: What 90% Renewables would look like in Vermont.  She quoted that post, as follows:

The Ethan Allen Institute, a conservative think tank, estimates that Vermont would need to install panels on 100,000 acres of land to meet 90 percent of its electric energy needs through solar.

The quote is correct. However, this estimate is for the case in which Vermont meets ALL its energy needs through solar renewables, not just its current electric needs. (Meeting all energy needs from renewables is the scenario required by the Vermont Comprehensive Energy Plan.)  The Vermont mandate is for 90% renewables for everything: electricity, transportation, heat, industrial processes.

Currently, Vermont uses 6,000 GWh of electricity per year.  I estimated that if electricity was also needed for heat pumps and transportation, we would triple that usage.  We would use 18,000 GWh electricity per year. If we met that requirement with solar, we would need 100,000 acres of solar panels.

Let's say, though, that we only use solar for our current electricity usage. We use 6000 GWh of electricity, and would only (only!) need 33,000 acres of solar installations to generate that amount of energy with solar.  (FWIW: Green Mountain National Forest is approximately 400,000 acres.)

100,000 acres: Showing my work

My estimate of 100,000 acres of solar panels was based on a 2.2 MW solar installation in White River Junction. This installation uses 15 acres and is expected to make 2,800 MWh of electricity per year.  It's a quick calculation to get to 100,000 acres. With 18,000 GWh required, and 2.8 GWh produced per 15 acres--the panels would cover 96,000 acres to make 18,000 GWh.

I wrote that estimate in 2013. I decided to do an update with more recent solar installations. I found a Woodstock installation being planned: 500 kW on 3 acres, and a Strafford Hill installation being dedicated: 2000 kW (2 MW) on 15 acres. Quick calculations showed that the solar installations are taking up about the same acres/kWh as I used in my previous estimate, to the rough level of accuracy of the earlier estimate.

The panels are coming

I don't think Vermont will ever host 100,000 acres of solar panels.  I don't think we will even host 10,000 acres of panels: the costs would be outrageously high.  At some point, even clever financing doesn't work.

But as the Mansfield report describes: solar is booming in Vermont, whether local people like it or not.  The "black billboards" (real billboards are not legal in Vermont) are springing up everywhere. As Mansfield writes:

The number and proposed size of commercial projects is also shooting up. The Public Service Department is now reacting to a handful of 20-megawatt commercial projects — which are 10 times larger than any of the existing projects in Vermont.

In other words, the panels are coming.

----------

Apple tree

Aside: Oh, I can't resist.  Once in a while, the hypocrisy is so blatant that it is funny.

Today,  Green mogul opposed wind farm off Martha's Vineyard, blasts objectors in Vermont was published by Bruce Parker of Vermont Watchdog.  The article tells about a renewable energy developer who has a fifteen million dollar home on Martha's Vineyard. He objected to Cape Wind. He claimed that it would spoil his view and lower the value of his house.  However, this same developer is planning a solar farm near the home of Libby Harris in Vermont. He has dismissed her objections (in a filed brief) as “NIMBY concerns.”

If you read Parker's post, you will see why I included a picture of an apple tree.

Parker has several guests posts on this blog.  The most recent post was Vermont town  protests renewable energy credits for MA and CT.

End Aside.

Vermont town protests renewable energy credits for MA and CT: Bruce Parker Guest Post

Vermont town protests renewable energy credits for Massachusetts and Connecticut

Solar farm in Portugal, from Wikipedia

Bruce Parker, Vermont Watchdog, published August 25, 2015

STRAFFORD, Vt. — The town of Strafford has changed its tune on approving a 4.9 megawatt solar array at the Elizabeth Mine, saying approval of the project is now contingent on Vermont — not other states — getting recognition for reducing its carbon footprint.

In a letter sent to the Public Service Board on Friday, the five members of the Selectboard wrote they will not let Wolfe Energy and Brightfields Development install solar at the site if the renewable energy credits associated with the power are sold out of state.

“The Strafford Selectboard, which approved an initial letter of support for the project in part based on the understanding that the project would go to meeting Vermont’s renewable energy needs, cannot continue our support of the project unless 100% of the renewable energy credits go to the state of Vermont by 2017,” the letter states.

“We want the impact of the project to help save valuable Vermont farm and forest lands and not, as currently planned, to go overwhelmingly to meeting renewable energy requirements in other states.”

The reversal comes after the selectmen learned Green Mountain Power, the expected purchaser of the solar power, plans to retire relatively few of the site’s associated renewable energy certificates in Vermont.

“It’s likely somewhere around 10 or 20 percent,” Dorothy Schnure, spokesperson for Green Mountain Power, told Vermont Watchdog.

While Green Mountain Power has yet to contract for the solar power, Schnure said the company expected to sell up to 90 percent of the renewable energy certificates to Massachusetts and Connecticut. Those states, upon purchasing the RECs, obtain the rightful claim — on a bookkeeping basis — to have reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

John Freitag, chair of the Strafford Selectboard, said leaders found out about the RECs in recent weeks, long after the town’s public information meeting, and after the Board wrote a July 8 letter supporting Wolfe Energy and Brightfields Development, the companies engaged in a joint venture to develop the Elizabeth Mine site.

“When you look at how this was presented by the developers of the Elizabeth Mine project, the clear impression was this was going to meet Vermont’s renewable energy needs, Freitag said.

“There needs to be a little more honest conversation about this and about weighing the pros and cons. You can’t say Green Mountain Power is lowering the rates and we’re a renewable energy leader if the reason we’re lowering the rate is because we’re selling everything out of state.”

In Vermont, selling RECs out of state generates more than $50 million annually for utility companies. Schnure says Green Mountain Power plans to retire enough RECs to meet Vermont goals but sell the rest to help lower Vermonters’ energy bills.

“On all the various renewable energy projects that we either own or purchase, we will retire RECs that we need to retire to meet the new state law,” Schnure said. “For any RECs associated with the projects that are in addition to that, then we would sell them, and every penny of a sold REC goes to lower costs for our customers.”

Selling RECs enables Vermont to increase the amount of renewable generation it produces in a cost-effective way. Under the newly passed Act 56, a full 55 percent of a utility’s energy sales must come from renewables starting in 2017. That percentage ratchets up every year until 2032, when utilities must have 75 percent renewable energy in their portfolios.

Kevin B. Jones, professor of Energy Technology and Policy at Vermont Law School, applauded Strafford for raising the issue.

“I commend the Strafford Selectboard for taking leadership on this. Vermont has historically had the most fundamentally flawed renewable energy laws in the country because they set renewable energy goals but then encouraged the utilities to sell the renewable energy credits out of state,” Jones said.

“(This year), the Legislature set a goal that utilities have to meet and actually retire the RECs for it. Before, they were meeting the goal by selling the RECs, which was facilitating false green claims and no environmental benefit. The Legislature has changed the law going forward, and for a renewable energy standard the RECs need to be retired in the future.”

Jones said if well-sited projects like the Elizabeth Mine don’t get counted toward Vermont’s goals, renewable energy developers will be forced to develop additional solar and wind projects on less appropriate areas, such as prime ag lands and forests, causing irreparable harm to wildlife.

Asked what happens to a state’s environmental claims when RECs are sold out of state, Jones said, “You can’t say it’s renewable energy for Vermonters. It will result in increasing our carbon emissions rather than reducing them, because of the proper greenhouse gas accounting for it. And we will have to then develop another five megawatts someplace else in the future to meet the Vermont requirement.”

Freitag said that outcome is not what the Selectboard had in mind when members gave initial support for the project.

“Vermont’s not an easy place to live, and it’s not a cheap place to live. The reason why we live here is because of the beauty and uniqueness of our state. … Our feeling was, we don’t want to sell off that beauty of our landscape and the uniqueness of our place for the benefit of Massachusetts and Connecticut, who choose not to build their own renewable energy projects,” he said.

“I don’t think most Vermonters would want to have our landscape covered with these things for the benefit of other states, even if this saves us a few dollars.”

--
Bruce Parker is a reporter for Watchdog.org. Contact him at bparker@watchdog.org and follow him on Twitter @WatchdogVT

-----

Once again, Bruce Parker of Vermont Watchdog has graciously allowed me to reprint his article.   The original article has excellent graphics and comments, and I recommend it.

Economic fallout from closed Vermont Yankee plant to continue for years: Bruce Parker Guest Post

Economic fallout from closed Vermont Yankee plant to continue for years

By Bruce Parker  August 14, 2015, Vermont Watchdog

Brattleboro, from a walking trail, Wikipedia

BRATTLEBORO, Vt. — As the consequences of closing Vermont Yankee materialize in southeastern Vermont, residents are discovering the dangerous fallout from the plant is turning out to be economic, not nuclear.

“Vermont Yankee had a significant amount of our catering business — probably 10 percent of our business was to Vermont Yankee. And that’s going to go away,” Bill Daley, owner of Vermont Country Deli, told Vermont Watchdog.

Daley, whose deli has served sandwiches, fresh-baked desserts and pastries to the Brattleboro community since it opened more than 25 years ago, said the loss of the region’s sole economic powerhouse is hurting a range of businesses.

“I know a number of businesses that have grumbled about losing Vermont Yankee. My discussions have been, if they go away, you’re losing a piece of the economy, and it’s a large piece of the economy, and definitely our customer base. We’re now having to live with that decision,” Daley said.

Lost business is only part of the trouble facing residents of Windham County after the nuclear plant closed in December. Sales of single-family homes in Brattleboro are down 16.2 percent year over year, and the median sales price for homes has dipped 8.5 percent, from $194,000 in 2014 to $177,500 so far in 2015. The slump comes at a time when housing nationwide is experiencing a robust recovery.

According to Adam Grinold, executive director of the Brattleboro Development Credit Corp., planners knew ahead of time that closing Vermont Yankee would hurt the housing market and cause job losses far beyond those at the plant.

“We in the region started ringing the alarm the minute that happened, saying housing was going to suffer. There would be too much inventory, which would require prices to drop, and the people who were stuck in the Entergy nuclear world were going to have to move and unload their homes. That’s going to lower the prices,” he said.

RELATED: Brattleboro housing market dives as Vermont Yankee exits region

Since 2012, Grinold’s group has been reviewing Vermont Yankee impact studies that detail economic challenges facing residents and businesses in the tri-county area.

The most recent study, published by the UMass Donahue Institute in December, claims the loss of Vermont Yankee’s nearly 600 employees — who averaged $105,000 in annual pay — will result in an additional 669 job losses at nearby restaurants, retail outlets, real estate services and other local businesses.

The report projects the loss of 141 jobs in leisure and hospitality, 116 jobs in education and health services, 111 jobs in professional services, 81 jobs in retail trade, 54 jobs in financial activities and 44 in construction. The estimated 1,220 total job losses represent a combined annual pay of $106,901,672 and an economic output of $493,406,806.

Grinold is not hopeless, however. He said a 2014 Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy document, or CEDS, holds the key to transforming the regional economy. He also said the Southeastern Vermont Economic Development Strategies, an affiliate of the Brattleboro Development Credit Corp., has identified scores of job openings that could lure talent to the area.

“Following the CEDS, SeVEDS initiated a workforce development study. We went out to our region’s largest employers, and we know we have over 3,000 jobs needed in the coming years,” Grinold said. “So we know what sector those are in and what education is needed. We know we have the housing available, and we have the jobs available. Now we just have to figure out how to get the people here to do those jobs.”

Asked if his group was in talks with businesses that could fill the void left by Vermont Yankee, Grinold said nothing was in the works at this early stage. But he expressed optimism about programs such as the Windham County Economic Development Program and the Southern Vermont Economic Development Zone, which held its first committee meeting last week.

“Any region would love to bring in new large manufacturing. BDCC helped attract and develop the Commonwealth Dairy facility two years ago, so we know it can be done,” he said. “Certainly now with the Windham County Economic Development Program Funds, Windham County is uniquely positioned to be able to offer incentives.”

As for Daley, he said operating his deli business is becoming a challenge due to Vermont’s economic and political climate.

“The property taxes have all gone up … and to have the minimum wage go up the way it’s going up, it’s going to be more and more difficult. Plus there’s a limited market here with people,” Daley said.

While Daley said he hasn’t raised prices in the past two years, he couldn’t make any promises going forward.

“Any time you increase the cost of doing business you have to make decisions: Do I increase the number of hours I have and therefore I don’t hire somebody? How do I shift the costs around so it’s affordable?” Daley said. “We’ve tried to hold down costs, but if costs continue to go up I can’t say we’re going to keep prices down in the future.”

---

Bruce Parker is a reporter for Watchdog.org. Contact him at bparker@watchdog.org and follow him on Twitter @WatchdogVT

-----

Once again, Bruce Parker of Vermont Watchdog has graciously allowed me to reprint his article.   The original article has excellent graphics and comments, and I recommend it.  His previous guest post at this blog was Vermont Utilities Buy Nuclear Capacity from New Hampshire. 

And meanwhile, my two cents about today's post:

I am always amazed at people who are excited about "getting the people here to do the jobs" when a big employer has left and the town is (in my opinion) sinking into a mini-depression.  I find some of the comments within the article a bit ironical.

The Green Vision for Vermont: We Can't Be Rural

The Bureaucratic Goal

For the past two posts, I have been down in the weeds trying to make sense of the Vermont Public Service Department (PSD) request for comments on the 2015 Vermont Comprehensive Energy Plan. This plan describes the methodology for forcing Vermont energy to become 90% renewable, in all sectors, by 2050.

90% renewable can't  actually be achieved in Vermont. However, the PSD has attempted to hide that simple fact by generating hundreds of pages of prose, and tens of pages of requests for feedback.  

As I say, I was down in the weeds reviewing this endless prose.  What a waste of time.

The New Vermont? No ten-acre lots here.
Wikipedia picture of NYC,
with note of population density
approx 28K people per square mile

The Vision Goal

The real question is: What is the goal of this draconian plan?  What is the vision?  What is Vermont's future supposed to look like?

While I was parsing bureaucratic rambling,   Bruce Parker of Vermont Watchdog reviewed the visionary goals of the plan.

Parker's recent article describes the Green Vision for the Future of Vermont, as expounded by David Blittersdorf. Blittersdorf is the president of All Earth Renewables in Vermont, and a strong supporter (some would say "crony") of Governor Shumlin. Blittersdorf supports the Vermont Comprehensive Energy Plan, and frankly, stands to profit by it. Blittersdorf gave a presentation to the Addison County Democrats: Parker reviewed it.

Here are some quotes from the Blittersdorf vision for  Vermont.

“The car has been our No. 1 reason we consume so much energy. Suburbia is built around the car; our highway system is heavily subsidized around the car….In Vermont, people like to live 10, 20, 30 miles from work. That’s going to disappear. The 10-acre lot way out in the middle of nowhere on a dirt road is not going to be working anymore. "

Please read Parker's article at Watchdog:  Green Energy CEO: Vermonters Must Abandon the Car, Embrace Renewable Energy Future.  It is illustrated with fine picture of Governor Peter Shumlin stepping out of his Suburban to attend a rally. Click on the link and read it. Look at the comments, too.

Choice or Mandate, in my opinion 

Yes. Living in cities is more energy-efficient.  This is true. World-wide, more people are choosing to live in cities.

However, I believe in choice. In choosing to live in cities, or choosing not to live in cities. I want  inexpensive energy so people can make choices.

Vermont is mandating only-renewable-energy, no nuclear, no fossil…. and therefore energy will be expensive, cars will be unavailable, and everyone-will-have-to-move. No ten-acre lots out in the country, not for Vermont anymore!  Is New York City the model for Vermonters?

This is not environmentalism  This is coercion and arrogance.

Meanwhile, the lords and masters can still drive their Suburbans?

Supplementary Information:

Blittersdorf presentation to the Addison County Democrats on June 8, 2015, Youtube.

My down-in-the-weeds post about the renewable energy plan.

My down-in-the-weeds post about commenting on the renewable energy plan.

Nuclear Blogger Carnival 269, Here at Yes Vermont Yankee

Once again, we are proud to host the Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers, right here at Yes Vermont Yankee.  The Carnival is a compendium of nuclear blogs that rotates from blog site to blog site, and it is always a pleasure and an honor to host it.

Nuke Power Talk - Gail Marcus
Climate Change and Science

At Nuke Power Talk, Gail Marcus reports on an article that echoes a theme she's been concerned about for years--that some actions taken in the name of conservation, or of combatting climate change, are actually short-sighted or counterproductive.

Neutron Bytes - Dan Yurman
Entrepreneurial Startups Tackle Advanced Nuclear Reactor Designs

Almost three dozen firms representing $1.3 billion of investor money are pursuing technological innovations in the field of nuclear energy. A June 2015 report by the Third Way, a Washington, DC, think tank, details the mix of firms includes small startups and big-name investors like Bill Gates.  All are placing bets on a comeback for nuclear energy working to get their respective technologies to market in an increasingly carbon-constrained world.

Northwest Clean Energy Blog - Meredith Angwin
Small Modular Reactors for the Northwest

Recently, the Washington State legislature has allocated money for a study of siting Small Modular Reactors (SMR) in the state.  Energy Northwest has an agreement with NuScale for future use of their reactor. At a recent meeting in Boston, NuScale reported on its plans for obtaining an NRC license.   In this post, Meredith Angwin describes the meeting and NuScale's plans.

Neutron Bytes - Dan Yurman
Greens target license renewal for Diablo Canyon nuclear plant

Seismic issues and demands for cooling towers are potential points of leverage

This month the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) kicked off the restart of the  license renewal for the twin 100 MW Westinghouse PWR type nuclear reactors at the Pacific Gas & Electric  Diablo Canyon site located on California’s Pacific Ocean coast 200 miles north of Los Angeles.

Green groups see the development of an environmental impact statement (EIS), required as part of the license renewal decision process, as a key opportunity to raise two sets of issues.  The first is seismic safety and the second is a demand for the plant to go from an open loop to closed loop cooling system by building cooling towers.

Make no mistake about how these concerns are presented by the California environmental movement. It is stridently anti-nuclear and has just one objective, and that is to end the operation of the reactors.

Yes Vermont Yankee - Bruce Parker Guest Post
Vermont Utilities Buy Nuclear Capacity from New Hampshire: Guest post by Bruce Parker

Now that Vermont Yankee is closed, Vermont utilities have asked the Vermont Public Service board to approve new contracts with Seabrook.  Post by Bruce Parker includes details of the utility requests, interviews with utility executives, and an interview with Guy Page of Vermont Energy Partnership.

Vermont Utilities Buy Nuclear Capacity from New Hampshire: Guest post by Bruce Parker

Utilities buy nuclear capacity from New Hampshire as Vermont dismantles nuke plant

By Bruce Parker  /   July 8, 2015  / Vermont Watchdog

DECOMMISSIONED: Vermont Yankee, an electric generating nuclear power plant located in Vernon, Vt., generated 620 megawatts of electricity and provided 71 percent of the state’s electric generation before lawmakers and environmentalists pressured it to cease operations.caption

Utility companies in Vermont are buying nuclear capacity from New Hampshire while Vermont dismantles its former electricity-generating nuclear powerhouse.

“We got a 20-year contract with NextEra, which is not very typical,” David Hallquist, CEO of Vermont Electric Cooperative, said of his company’s move to stock up on low-cost nuclear generation.

“The generators who are going to be around a long time, such as a nuclear plant, are going to sell long-term contracts. And with the volatility of the forward capacity market … we expect upward pressure (on prices) to continue,” he said.

Hallquist said his company filed a petition with the Public Service Board the last week of June to get approval of the long-range contract with NextEra, a Florida-based energy company that operates a nuclear power plant in Seabrook, New Hampshire. The nuclear plant is attracting business as officials in the Green Mountain State work to decommission Vermont Yankee, a nuclear plant that formerly supplied 70 percent of all electricity generated in Vermont.

Vermont Electric Cooperative, the state’s largest locally-owned electric utility, seeks up to 10 megawatts of capacity from the Seabrook nuclear plant. Hallquist says locking in a long-term rate on nuclear capacity makes sense due to nuclear power’s affordability relative to other power sources.

“Capacity in New England used to be fairly inexpensive relative to today — and that was just two years ago that it was relatively inexpensive. The capacity charge was just $3 a megawatt-month back two years ago. Today it’s $10 a megawatt-month,” he said.

To keep the lights on and prevent blackouts, electric utilities purchase both energy and capacity. Energy, measured in megawatt hours, is the electricity currently being consumed. Capacity, in contrast, is stable backup power that utilities use to manage peak loads that draw upon the grid. The amount of capacity utilities need is determined by ISO standards set by 13 independent system operators across the country. Those operators monitor grid use and provide oversight to keep the grid stable.

Since Vermont Yankee closed in 2013 — in part due to hot pressure from Gov. Peter Shumlin and the state’s renewables-minded Legislature — utility companies in the Green Mountain State have scrambled to find reliable sources for their forward-capacity needs. According to Hallquist, wind and solar power are useless as sources of capacity.

“The problem is when you’re doing capacity you’ve got to make sure it’s there when you need it. So solar and wind, because it’s an intermittent resource, you can’t purchase it as a capacity tool. You can only purchase (it for) energy,” he said. “ISO New England has to make sure the generation is available when the load is there, and you can’t necessarily count on solar and wind for capacity, because it’s weather dependent.”

NEW HAMPSHIRE STRONG: Vermont utility companies are planning to purchase nuclear power capacity from New Hampshire’s Seabrook Station Nuclear Plant due to the plant’s stable generation and highly affordable rates.

Halquist’s company isn’t the only utility stocking up on next-door nuclear. In January, Green Mountain Power petitioned the Public Service Board for a 16-year, 150-megawatt contract purchase of nuclear from Seabrook.

“What we have filed for is a purchase that is mostly capacity and a little bit energy. We need that to help with our capacity obligations,” Dorothy Schnure, spokesperson for Green Mountain Power, told Vermont Watchdog.

Schnure said the company’s nuclear request underwent Public Service Board hearings in early June and now awaits approval.

“We went out to bid because we needed more capacity to help stabilize prices, and this was the lowest of the bids,” she said.

“Vermont at its peak uses about 1,100 megawatts of electricity. So you have to have enough generation, or capacity, available to satisfy that peak.”

Green Mountain Power uses nuclear generation for energy use as well as capacity, which is why its petition includes both. According to Schnure, the company hoped to reduce the nuclear energy in its portfolio but now intends to increase it.

“Originally, it was set to decrease to 50 (megawatts) and then decrease again to 40 megawatts. (As) part of this recent filing we slow the energy ramp down. Instead of going from 60 to 50 to 40, it goes from 60 to 50 to 55. So, going out into the future, we get a little bit more energy from Seabrook than we originally were getting in the original contract,“ she said.

In 2013, Entergy announced it was closing Vermont Yankee due to financial considerations. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission extended the plant’s operating license 20 years starting in 2011, and in 2012 Entergy won a court battle preventing the Vermont Legislature from shutting down its operations, which lawmakers attempted in 2010.

At the plant’s scheduled closing last December, Shumlin said he “long advocated for the closing of this plant.”

“I believe the ceasing of operations … after nearly 43 years represents a positive step for our state and our energy future. (T)hanks to investments in renewable energy such as solar, Vermont’s energy future is on a different, more sustainable path that is creating jobs, reducing energy costs for Vermonters and slowing climate change,” Shumlin said in a statement.

But Guy Page, communications director for the Vermont Energy Partnership, a coalition that advocates for clean, low-cost electricity solutions, said recent nuclear purchases tell a different story.

“There is a very sad irony to this situation. The source of power that had been demonized by Vermont’s energy leaders is now being embraced because it’s a decent, clean, low-cost solution to their energy problem,” he said.

“While it’s true it’s a good deal and it’s low carbon, Vermont is not getting the jobs. Vermont is not getting the tax revenue. Vermont is not getting the incredible donor benefit of having a large generous employer in their backyard.”

Page said Vermont Yankee, in addition to offering clean low-cost power, provided Winham County with good-paying jobs, money and volunteers for homeless shelters, and public safety emergency responders.

“That free infrastructure that was there because of the generosity of these people, they won’t be getting that from Seabrook.”

Page claims the situation in Vermont compares with Germany, which closed nuclear plants after the Fukushima disaster in Japan, but had to install coal plants to make up for the lost electricity generation.

“We’ve lost Vermont Yankee, and who knows what else we’re going to lose. What they’re saying is let’s double down on natural gas, let’s build more pipelines, let’s build more renewables,” Page said. “No one in power is talking about, gosh, maybe we ought to keep our existing nuke plants around. … It’s so easy to say no and wave a flag and feel good. But what are you going to do in its place?”

Contact Bruce Parker at bparker@watchdog.org


Bruce Parker is a reporter for Watchdog.org. Contact him at bparker@watchdog.org and follow him on Twitter @WatchdogVT

Sign-up for our Vermont Watchdog email list to receive the latest news and in-depth coverage.

COPYRIGHT
© 2015 Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity

-------

This article originally appeared at Vermont Watchdog Org on July 8, 2015, and is used with permission.

Guy Page of Vermont Energy Partnership is quoted near the end of this post. Page is a frequent guest blogger at this blog.  David Hallquist, CEO of Vermont Electric Co-Op, is quoted near the beginning of this post.  Mr. Hallquist has published a guest post on this blog.

Meredith Angwin sends her appreciation to Bruce Parker, Guy Page and David Hallquist for their appearance on this blog.