Soaring Prices in New England: An Update And Another Update

Electricity Prices Rises in New England, Updated

Golden coins

On Saturday, I posted Electricity Prices Soar in New England. And Soon In Vermont. In this post, I used two examples of recent rate hikes: National Grid in Massachusetts is raising rates by 37%, and Liberty Mutual in New Hampshire is raising rates by 50%.

Since then, New Hampshire Electric Coop announced a rate increase of 12%. Public Service of New Hampshire, which owns the Merrimack Station Coal Plant, expects only a slight rate increase. Another New Hampshire utility, Unitil, will soon file for a winter rate.  NHPR reports Electric Co-op Latest Utility To Announce Rate Increase.

Hah!  This just in! Unitil (New Hampshire utility) announced that the close-to-100% price rise on the grid (8.4 cents to 15.5 cents) will cost Unitil customers an extra $42 per month, starting in December. Unitil Electric Rates to Rise $42 per month.

Price Mealy-Mouthing in New England, Updated

Meanwhile, closer to home, Green Mountain Power and its sister utility, Vermont Gas Systems, explain that they are efficient and will therefore have stable prices. (This seems to imply that neighboring utilities are inefficient.) WCAX reports: GMP and Vermont Gas Keep Stable Prices. 

Both GMP and Vermont Gas are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Gaz Metro.

My own interpretation of the GMP statement about stable prices is quite simple: they aren't announcing the price rise just yet.  Gaz Metro companies don't always announce things promptly, as far as I can tell.

For example, the Vermont Gas pipeline expansion will cost $120 million dollars, which is $35 million more than regulators approved. Vermont Gas knew of the overrun in March, but did not notify regulators until July (meanwhile, Vermont Gas kept building the pipeline). Vermont Gas was fined $35,000 for this delay in notification.  Vermont Digger reports: Vermont Supreme Court Clears PSB to Reconsider Vermont Gas Pipeline.

A Well-Written Report from Conca at Forbes

Meanwhile, at Forbes, James Conca has an excellent post (including a link to my Saturday post): Closing Vermont Nuclear Bad Business for Everyone. He shows how closing Vermont Yankee is hurting our neighboring states.  It is a pleasure to read a good post about our area in the national media. I also urge you to read and join the lively comment stream on that post.

Consumer Liaison Group

I was just elected to the Coordinating Committee of the Consumer Liaison Group (CLG) of the grid operator, ISO-NE. I am one of two representatives from Vermont on the committee.  The group exchanges information with ISO about policies that affect consumers.  It also advises ISO.

I went to the CLG meeting September 24, but that is a subject for a whole different blog post. As you can imagine, however, the coming price rises were a major topic of discussion.

More updates soon.

Update again:  

Berkshire Eagle reports that National Grid price rise will cost homeowners up to $100 a month more on their bills and cost even more to businesses: National Grid Customers, Lawmakers Charged Up about Rate Increase.


Update: Some People Love Expensive Electricity An important post from Rod Adams: a review of the philosophy of people who celebrate the price rises because "the only way to guarantee that energy conservation measures are diligently pursued in this country is to make energy a very precious and expensive commodity. " (This quote was part of a comment on James Conca's article in Forbes.) Rod's post: Purposeful Price Pumping By Constraining Supply

Another Name for Methane: The Microgrid for Vermont

Sudden Press about the "Microgrid"

Natural gas

In the past two days, articles about NRG and the supposed New Generation have been coming thick and fast.

At the national level, NRG and HuffPo are starting a joint venture called Generation Change: Together We Will Be Heard. This forum is going to have "realer than real" dialog about energy, including the new "solar power that has evolved from large roof top panels limited to industrial buildings to ones that are compact, portable and charge our phones, cameras and tablets."

Okay, yeah, confusing.

At the Vermont local level, there's a joint venture between NRG and the Gaz Metro's wholly-owned subsidiary, Green Mountain Power (GMP).  As Vermont Digger reported:  GMP Teams With National Energy Company to Build Microgrids.

The story is clearer locally, but the story is not fun.

The NRG CEO takes a stand for Natural Gas

The Vermont Digger story quotes NRG CEO David Crane about these planned microgrids.  He says that  "the best form of energy storage is natural gas. "

Huh huh huh? Now methane is energy storage?

Traditional not-smart solar

Let me explain this, by referencing to the comment stream on this article (which is terrific). In the comments, people in favor of microgrids and people against microgrids all ask the same question:  Exactly HOW does natural gas come into this?

Finally, one comment link explains it. The link is to this article, with more extensive quotes from the NRG CEO. NRG Energy Deploying Dean Kamen’s Solar-Smart In-Home Generator.

Note the clever title "Solar Smart Generator." Solar and smart!  How wonderful.

55KW Stirling Generator
Wikipedia
Smart Solar?

If you continue to read, however, you find that Solar-Smart is a Stirling engine running on natural gas. It is sized for the home. And somehow, it's all about Hurricane Sandy.

I gather that NRG's goal is for every home to have its own Stirling engine and a natural gas connection.  The end-quote on the Solar-Smart article is from NRG CEO David Crane:  “The solar industry belongs with the natural gas industry -- those industries go together. They just don’t know it yet.”

 Side Note: It's a large company, but not everyone has heard of NRG. Wikipedia describes their business areas as including co-generation, renewable energy, and renewables. The company owns many fossil-fired plants, some wind farms, and part of a nuclear plant.  The core company was part of Houston Lighting and Power. It has expanded by many acquisitions.

The GMP CEO takes a stand against electricity distribution

Now, back to Vermont.  In the Vermont Digger article, we see that the CEO of GMP is in line with this "your very own Stirling engine" idea. (I guess that is why she's teaming up with NRG on microgrids.)  In the article, GMP CEO Mary Power  described the current energy infrastructure as “archaic” and made up of “twigs and twine” that will cost the nation tens of billions of dollars over the next decade.

The CEO of Green Mountain Power Seems pretty cavalier about the current grid. Doesn't sound eager to maintain that old "twigs and twine" system.   This is even though she heads a DISTRIBUTION utility, for heaven's sake!   What is she doing saying stuff like this? Does she want to see the archaic grid disappear, along with GMP and her job?

GMP may lose, but Gaz Metro will win

Of course not. In my opinion, CEO Mary Powell's  job is safe.  After all, she works for Gaz Metro.  GMP is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Gaz Metro. We Vermonters forget that at our peril.

Even if Powell doesn't bother much about the grid in Vermont, her parent company can do very well. Gaz Metro can hope to put in lots of gas pipelines for those microgrid Stirling engines.

Vermonters may lose, but the state government will win

"Twigs and Twine"
Wonder what GMP linemen
think of Ms. Powell's statement?

A wonderful thing about natural gas is you can raise the taxes almost infinitely.  Vermont put tax after tax on Vermont Yankee, and Vermont Yankee decided to close down. Vermont slapped a $12 million generation tax on Vermont Yankee. Meanwhile, through its revenue sharing agreement,  the plant was already on the hook for $18 million in revenue sharing with the local utilities.

Sending the state and utilities a total of $30 million dollars in a year is a lot for a small plant. As an oversimplification, taxing Vermont Yankee to that extent made its profits lower and its power less competitive.  This was one of the reasons it closed, in my opinion.

Raising Taxes for the State

With gas pipelines, raising taxes is just so easy.  You can force a gas pipeline to pay, say, $30 million a year in taxes...no problem. The pipeline will just go to the PSB and ask for a rate increase.  People won't stop buying the product (natural gas) just because the price went up. For heating your home, home, fuel oil and propane will probably still be more expensive than natural gas.  Also, once you use  natural gas, there may well be a cost to retrofitting your home furnace for another fuel.

What about the electric utilities? Aren't they price sensitive? Well, no.  Merchant plants sell into a market and they are price sensitive.  But the distribution utilities are regulated, and they get more money by the simple expedient of asking for it.  Let's face it.  New coal or nuclear aren't in the cards. Renewables, though subsidized, aren't cheap either.

Basically, as long as gas remains cheaper than oil, the sky will be the limit on how much distribution utilities will be willing to pay for gas-fired electricity. Even if gas is highly taxed and expensive, the distribution utilities will buy it. After all, the distribution utilities can't go broke, as long as they can go to the PSB, explain the situation, and get a rate increase.

The Winners and The Losers

So, with this great leap forward of a mutual aid pact between Gaz Metro and NRG, who are the winners and the losers?

Winners:

• Gaz Metro (sells more gas)
• GMP (sells more gas, after all, it is Gaz Metro)
• State administration. The state can tax the pipelines as much as they want to tax them, and the consumers will pay.

Losers:

• Vermont consumers who want reliable power. They want someone to keep repairing those sticks and that twine.
• Vermont consumers who want affordable power. The mixture of high-priced gas, stealth gas taxes and few merchant plants will mean "bye-bye to affordable."
• Any sincere environmentalist who is living painfully off the grid with solar panels, a wood stove, a bunch of batteries, and a vegetable garden. This person just didn't know how easy it is to be green with natural gas, the new storage. 

No New Transmission Lines for Vermont! Vermont Government Reacts to Vermont Yankee Closing

Update: Governor Shumlin Reverses Position Again

In mid-June, Governor Shumlin spoke with utility regulators and "tapped the brakes" on the idea of a rapid build-out of gas pipelines and electric transmission lines. According to an article by John Herrick in Vermont Digger, Shumlin said this infrastructure might become obsolete, and new technologies could lessen the need to transmit large amounts of power.

However, in late June, Shumlin reversed his position. On June 20, a panel of energy experts representing the governors of all the New England states met: the meeting was reported by Deborah McDermott of Seacoast Online.  In this meeting, the panelists agreed to ask for a "tariff" (tax) on electricity. The tariff would be used to finance natural gas pipelines and electricity transmission lines.

The state-appointed panelists stepped on the gas for an infrastructure buildout.

As the energy panelists said--something has to give in New England.

It Was Winter 

Once upon a time (earlier this year, actually) a polar vortex came to call in New England.  Sub-zero temperatures  meant that great quantities of natural gas were used for heating homes. Therefore, not enough natural gas was available for gas-fired power plants.  Oil and jet fuel were called into service to provide electricity, and prices on the grid soared. As many news reports noted at the time, there are not enough natural gas pipelines into the Northeast.

Governor Shumlin in January: We need new energy projects

On January 21, all six governors of New England got together as part of the New England States Committee on Electricity to address the pipeline problem.  The governors signed an agreement requesting ISO-NE to support in the development and filing of any tariff changes [fees to users] for two purposes.

In the first purpose, these fees would enable new transmission lines to be built. The lines would bring between 1200 and 3600 MW of low carbon power into the New England electrical systems.  Translation: we will build new power lines to get electricity from Hydro Quebec.

In the second purpose, governors also requested a fee on electricity for the purpose of building new pipeline capacity  to bring natural gas to the area.  The idea is that consumers should pay more for electricity now, in order to build gas pipelines as soon as possible.

Note: Governor Shumlin signed this agreement with these requests.

And Now It's Summer

Meanwhile, the seasons have changed. Peonies bloom, fireflies blink in the twilight, and Vermonters protest energy projects. Pipeline opponents are concerned that an already-planned gas pipeline will carry fracked gas. They also worry about water contamination. They are protesting, chaining themselves to the doors of the gas company, and so forth. One protester was arrested for alleged assault.

Fireflies in Germany

People in Vermont do not like this pipeline. Their reaction doesn't look good for building even more pipelines in Vermont.

But what about transmission lines?  This situation is more confusing because several lines have been proposed. John Herrick of Vermont Digger wrote a comprehensive report in early June: Vermont Smack in the Middle of Crucial Electricity Supply and Demand. As you can see in the report, Vermont seems to be in favor of at least some of these transmission lines, as long as enough goodies are attached. A quote from the Herrick report:

[TDI] wants to bury a 150-mile transmission line under Lake Champlain. TDI, a subsidiary of Blackstone Group, a financial services firm, has lined up private capital for the estimated $1.2 billion project.....TDI says it would also donate tens of millions of dollars to the state for costly Lake Champlain cleanup – or whatever the state decides is best.

Gee, that sounds familiar. "Donate tens of millions of dollars..."

Governor Shumlin in June: Let's Slow Down the Infrastructure Build-Out

As reported by John Herrick in Vermont Digger, Governor Shumlin spoke to utility regulators in early June.  Shumlin "tapped the brakes" on the build-out.  He said that we don't know that "with the evolutions of technology and the local, distributed generation of power...(we may end up) paying for huge stranded costs if we build tons and tons of delivery." Shumlin spoke of the evolution of cell phones. In parallel with cell phones, Shumlin claimed that "new technologies could soon lessen the need to transmit large amounts of power from faraway areas."

Brayton Point

Well, not really. Let's look at the power situation in the Northeast. In Vermont, Vermont Yankee is shutting down.  In Massachusetts, three major coal plants (Salem Harbor, Brayton Point, and Mt. Tom) will close in the next few years, some in the next few months.The grid operator said that Brayton Point was a "must-run" facility. The plant owners answered: "Too bad, we are closing it anyway in 2017."

In short, without "power from faraway areas," the grid around here could get seriously unreliable. We will need transmission lines.

Dumb? Or Smart?

Some of my friends have looked at the Governor's statement and concluded that the man is simply dumb about energy.  He doesn't want power plants, and he doesn't want transmission lines. Yes, this is the man who said that Germany  got 30% of its juice from solar, and that a nuclear plant must be kept running with mostly full staff for years after shutdown.

Shumlin has proven that he is no genius on energy matters.

Governor Shumlin

However, Shumlin is very smart about politics and negotiations.  His recent statements can best be understood as part of a negotiation with anyone who would build any infrastructure in Vermont.  If you build it, you must pay us!

Shumlin has surely noticed that without Vermont Yankee, there will be no easy source for new funds in the Clean Energy Development Fund. I think he has decided to tax the new infrastructure: in other word, tax whatever replaces Vermont Yankee.

When Shumlin makes a speech against the infrastructure development, he becomes better able to get concessions (money) from the infrastructure developers. Shumlin has shown that he can be a formidable enemy to an energy project.  As one person on Facebook wrote: "He's got Vermont Yankee's head on his wall now."  If a project doesn't want him as an enemy, the project owners will probably pay what he wants them to pay.

In my opinion, Shumlin is not dumb. He's smart like a fox.

As a blogger, I plan to have the last word here:

Foxes are smart for themselves.  They are not known for their public-spirited actions.  Ultimately, the ratepayers will bear the costs of Shumlin's way of being-smart.

Guest Post: Hallquist on Wind and the Grid

David Hallquist is the Chief Executive Officer of the Vermont Electric Cooperative (VEC).  Like most co-operatives, VEC is owned by its rate-payers.

Once upon a time, VEC was the third-largest utility in Vermont.

But then the two largest utilities, Green Mountain Power and Central Vermont Public Service, merged.  The new utility (Green Mountain Power) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Gaz Metro of Quebec.  So now VEC is the second-largest utility in Vermont.

This afternoon, David Hallquist sent me an email including some VEC talking points.  I asked if I could use them as a guest post on my blog. He graciously agreed.

But first, a few words about VEC.  VEC takes its responsibilities quite seriously, including:

• The requirement to use intermittent renewable power
• The requirement to provide reliable, reasonably-priced power to its owner/ratepayers.

A recent VEC blog post Adoption of Renewable Energy Requires Realistic Timeline, shows the utility's thoughtful approach.  Late last year, the VEC Board of Directors asked the legislature to put a hold on requiring new renewable mandates in the state.

This afternoon, Hallquist sent me two documents that were very interesting.  One I already had: Matt Wald of the New York Times on the soaring prices of natural gas In New England: A Natural Gas Trap.  Hallquist also sent me the talking points below, which expand on the Wald article and look further toward the future.

These talking points are the way VEC sees the grid situation, right now.

--------------------------

Concerns about the Effect of Natural Gas prices on Electric Rates

Vermont Electric Cooperative’s power supply portfolio is designed to provide stability and predictability of short and long-term power supply costs. VEC keeps a small portion of the portfolio open so that some power can be purchased on the open market.  Recent unexpected and prolonged high price levels in the wholesale energy markets has caused concern that underlying issues may cause future market volatility that could ultimately have a negative impact on consumer electric rates.

Wholesale electricity prices skyrocketed in mid-January through the end of February:

• Prices are normally around $36/megawatt-hour ,
• Prices spiked at about  $1000/megawatt-hour, and 
• Prices hovered much of the time around $200/megawatt-hour.  

This made sense in late-January as the Northeast was experiencing its worst cold snap since 2009.  What did not make sense is that the prices did not come back down when the weather moderated.  The prices finally came back down on February 24.

Natural gas prices drive wholesale electricity prices:

• Natural gas prices in New England in mid-February were five times the prices in early January.

Natural gas prices have been high due to an increase in demand, at a time when New England’s supply is constrained:

• New England has become more dependent on natural gas for its energy supply in the transportation, heating and electricity generation sectors.
• Winter Storm Nemo caused a key nuclear generator, along with other smaller electricity generators, to go off- line, causing an even greater demand for natural gas.
• Transmission infrastructure to New England spans a very long supply line starting in the Gulf of Mexico and is not adequate for current regional demand.
• By contrast, in neighboring New York where transmission is less constrained, natural gas prices remained low in early 2013.

Natural gas and wholesale electricity prices have returned to normal levels, but future volatility is expected:

• While the problem has gone away for the short term, this issue needs to be addressed as we continue to move to more and more natural gas as an energy source.
• New England has traditionally seen some volatile price spikes, but this last event shows we are in a critical situation.  
• According to ISO-NE, “the fuel supply uncertainty is escalating rapidly and is unsustainable.”

Further exacerbating the problem are the ISO operating procedures that are curtailing the production of lower cost, intermittent renewable energy generators:

• Several times during these past few weeks, the Kingdom Community Wind project was capable of full production, yet the ISO-NE was only allowing 1/6 of the output.  
• At one point, ISO-NE shut down Kingdom Community Wind to allow the oil peaking unit in Swanton to be run.
• Wind curtailment is an issue across the country, and needs a national focus on ISO rules about how intermittent resources (wind and solar) are handled.  

For more information, please contact:

Dave Hallquist, CEO
dhallquist@vermontelectric.coop
1.802.730.1138

or

Randy Pratt, Manager of Programs and Policy
rpratt@vermontelectric.coop
1.802.730.1108

Catching Up: $21 Million, Author Tour and Waste Confidence Rule

In honor of summer
and catching-up

You Loan Twenty-one Million and What Do You Get?

Well, if you are a Vermont ratepayer who loaned money to Central Vermont Public Service (CVPS), you do not get the money back.

Ratepayers were supposed to get the money back if anyone bought CVPS.  Green Mountain Power bought them, but there was a decision that that money-back idea was just silly, when the money could go to a fund. People can borrow from the fund for efficiency improvements. That would the same thing as getting the money back, if not better! (heavy sarcasm alert)

Gaz Metro is now owner of Green Mountain Power and CVPS. Gaz Metro doesn't have to return the money to the Vermont ratepayers.

 I have many posts on this, including Money Settles into Gaz Metro Pockets Dust Settles Under the Dome.  In mid-June, the Public Service Board approved the merger, without any direct refunds to ratepayers.

In completely un-related news, the former Vermont House majority leader has taken a new job with Green Mountain Power. In general, the House Democrats have supported Governor Shumlin on everything connected with this merger. As Randy Koch commented on the Vermont Digger article about Lucy Leriche's new job: It’s really nice to know that what sorta looks like disgusting corruption à la New Jersey is actually just neighbors working for neighbors, working for Vermont, all on the up and up.  (Second sarcasm alert in one post.  This might be a record for me.)

Author Tour with Nuclear Supporters in Attendance

A few days ago, we posted about an anti-nuclear author that was touring the area for the Hiroshima anniversary.  The author's name is Cecile Pineda, her book is The Devil's Tango, How I Learned the Fukushima Step By Step, and the tour was sponsored by the local anti-nuclear umbrella organization, the Sage Alliance.

Mainly due to Howard Shaffer publicizing this tour, there were pro-nuclear people at three of the author's events. In Brattleboro, Vermont, Richard Schmidt handed out his Vermont Yankee fact sheet.  On Cape Cod, Massachusetts, Dr Sam Martin, an ANS Northeast Region member, asked some questions about the rebuilding of Hiroshima (the author did not answer).  Here at the Howe library in Hanover, New Hampshire, near his home, Howard Shaffer attended.  Shaffer's post about this tour is up today at ANS Nuclear Cafe: Vermont Yankee Supporters at Anti-Nuke Book Tour.  

Showing up is the first thing that nuclear supporters need to do.  This post is about the author-- and about three people who showed up. Read it and be inspired!

The Waste Confidence Rule

The NRC is now required to write Environmental Impact Statements for spent fuel storage. This is leading to the possibility of licensing changes (no new licenses will be granted until the NRC has set up plans for such statements) and a great deal of speculation.  Of course, I must blog about how this affects Vermont Yankee.  (It basically doesn't affect Vermont Yankee, for now at least.)

For today, however, I will direct people to the Forbes article Nuclear Waste Confidence, NRC Ruling No Big Deal by James Conca, and (compare and contrast!) the Vermont Digger article Nuclear Regulator Commission Halts Nuclear Power Licensing Decisions.  The Digger article includes many interviews with nuclear opponents.

Gaz Metro merger goes forward. Ratepayers stiffed.

Gaz Metro has everything it wanted.  The Green Mountain Power/Central Vermont Public Service merger was approved by the Public Service Board today. The merged companies don't have to give $21 million back to the ratepayers, as they had promised, and as AARP hoped would happen.  The state legislature wanted to intervene in favor of the ratepayers, but they didn't. Governor Shumlin got his ducks in order and the legislators reversed their stands on the issue. They didn't "quibble" (the Governor's words) about the $21 million.  I blogged about the Governor's persuasive powers in Money Settles in Gaz Metro Pockets, Dust Settles Under the Dome.

Yes, the Public Service Board (PSB) ruled to give Gaz Metro pretty much everything it wanted.  You can read the ruling itself here, and a short Alan Panebaker article  in Vermont Digger here. This is the same PSB that allowed another Gaz Metro company to charge Vermont rate-payers for building a gas pipeline, instead of funding the pipeline with Gaz Metro money.

However, when it comes right down to it, I don't blame the PSB.  The Vermont Department of Public Service (DPS) is supposed to be the ratepayers advocate in proceedings before the PSB.  DPS is supposed to protect the ratepayer and it does not protect them. Seems to me that DPS doesn't defend the ratepayers in issues about money--especially money for a Gaz Metro company.   Since nobody is on the ratepayers' side, everything is coming up roses for Gaz Metro.

Gaz Metro: What's in it for Vermont? What's in it for Governor Shumlin?

Not Returning the Money

The legislature will not force Gaz Metro to return $21 million dollars they borrowed from the ratepayers of Vermont. CVPS (soon to be part of Gaz Metro-Green Mountain Power) will be able to keep the money, and even receive interest on it.  The AARP has a serious campaign to make Gaz Metro give the money back.  However, Governor Shumlin has persuaded the legislature not to insist on such quibbles about the funds, not to pander for votes, and not to give the money back.  I have most of the sordid story in my blog post: Money Settles Into Gaz Metro Pockets, Dust Settles Under the Dome.

Rob Roper of True North reports wrote a very telling interesting story on this issue in WTF?! (Why The Flip?!) Twenty members of the Vermont House publicly changed changed their votes. They had sponsored the bill to give the money back, or they had declared for it, and then-- presto chango--they voted against it.  Shumlin lined up his ducks (legislators), and they obeyed.

This is amazing.  Shumlin and the House Democratic leaders persuaded legislators to reverse their stated positions that utilities should refund money to voters.  The legislators supported the utilities against the ratepayers, despite the AARP, despite their own publicly stated stands, and so forth.

The utility cover story (we are going to use that money for Good Things like insulating houses) has also been broken, by the fact that the utilities expect to get interest payments on that money.

Yes, indeed, the money has been taken out of ratepayer pockets and put into Gaz Metro pockets, and House members publicly voted for it.

People Have Noticed

State Senator Randy Brock noticed this. Brock is running against Shumlin for the governor's office.  Brock has started an on-line petition to refund the ratepayer money, therefore identifying himself clearly with ratepayers and the AARP, and distancing himself from being seen as defending the interests of Gaz Metro.

Similarly, Gerry Silverstein wrote a very funny op-ed Vermont Energy Policy--a Play in Three Acts (So Far) in which he describes how the Wizard (Shumlin) makes money disappear from Vermont pockets and reappear in Canada.

Gaz Metro Has Noticed

Ratepayers aren't the only ones who have noticed that Shumlin will protect the Canadian utilities.  Gaz Metro has noticed also.  They have become much bolder in their demands.

In recent days, Gaz Metro has requested a "compressed process" for after-merger rate setting. This will be a process to set rates without having to hold all those annoying public meetings.  They have also announced that the Lowell Mountain wind project will cost $11 million dollars more.  Apparently, they hadn't looked ahead to the need to upgrade the grid to accept this intermittent energy.   They still claim the total costs of the project will be the same.

In other words, the Governor is on Gaz Metro's side, and Gaz Metro knows they have nothing to fear.  No public meetings on rates, higher costs for their renewable project--no problem!

If you simply substitute "Gaz Metro" for "Lola" and "little state" for "little man"-- this video says it all.





What is in it for Vermont? What is in it for Shumlin?

At this point, I must admit that the questions at the top of this post are completely unanswered.  I have no reason to believe that this merger will be good for the state.  Okay.  The merger and so forth are a matter of energy policy.

BUT,  I also have no understanding about why the Governor is pushing Gaz Metro's interests so hard. Gaz Metro yes, AARP no? Why??  Members of the AARP vote in this state. Canadians don't vote.  There are also laws about campaign contributions from foreign entities (it's a no-no).

What is the governor getting out of this pro-Gaz Metro stance?  It puzzles me and I admit it.

Meanwhile, however, Lola is doing very well.

A Gaz Metro Catch-Up: Whose Money Is It?

A Modest Proposal Updated

I wrote a blog post called A Modest Proposal suggesting that perhaps the utility merger in Vermont could use shareholder money as a weatherization account from which Vermonters can borrow. Then, they could give ratepayer money back to the ratepayers.

You see, CVPS was supposed to give $21 million back to the ratepayers if the company were acquired, but both CVPS and Gaz Metro think it would be more fun to have the money themselves.

A lot of people are upset about Gaz Metro keeping Vermont ratepayer money. The Department of Public Service (DPS) is not upset. DPS is supposed to be the consumer watchdog for Vermont, but they aren't watching very hard.

----------

A series of comments about the merger.

Looks like GMP decides when they've given enough money back, and then GMP takes the rest.

Vermont Representative Oliver Olsen on Have We Got a Deal for You in Vermont Tiger:

....Try following the pea in this shell game. Instead of providing a direct cash refund or using the windfall to reduce rates, the utility plans to invest in a variety of projects that will produce broad societal "benefits", which include intangibles like "reduced supply risk" and "emission reductions".... Gaz Metro will declare "mission accomplished" when $25 million of "benefits" have been tallied, and will quietly slip out the back door with $21 million in cash.

From balance sheet liability to balance sheet asset for GMP. So easy!

Patty Komline, Vermont Representative, in Vermont Tiger Give the Money Back:

...Last Friday I was a guest on VPR’s Vermont Edition with [Mary Powell] the CEO of Green Mountain Power. The people who called in overwhelming supported a simple payback. Ms. Powell was asked if the proposed merger deal turned the $21 million from a liability to an asset on their balance sheets. While reluctant to answer, Ms. Powell was clear; yes.

However, the Public Service Board May Still Do the Right Thing

Happily, it looks like the Public Service Board isn't convinced by the utility arguments on how the utilities themselves

should be keeping the money.

Gaz Metro to recover CVPS acquisition through ratepayer savings

by Alan Panebaker

at Vermont Digger.

....The Vermont Public Service Board has never before allowed a utility to recover an acquisition “premium” from merger savings that would ordinarily be passed on to consumers. If the three-member panel approves the arrangement, it would set new precedent, according to documents from the proceeding...[but] This deal is different, company [Green Mountain Power] officials say: It is historic in nature because of its size and the potential benefits it offers for customers. (Blogger comment: Really? It's different? Because the merger is bigger and there's more money on the table? The laws and precedents change if there's more money at stake?)

Maybe The Money Will Come Back to the Ratepayers

Despite the lack of interest of the Department of Public Service in protecting the ratepayers, the Public Service Board may do the right thing. They may insist that the ratepayer money returns to the ratepayers. I surely hope so.

I conclude with another quote from Have We Got a Deal for You, by Oliver Oleson

Governor Shumlin has done a good job advocating for the utilities. But under Vermont law, the Governor’s administration is charged with representing the interests of Vermont ratepayers before the PSB. They should start doing that.

Update:

Howard Shaffer's post on his debate with Gundersen about the Pilgrim plant is posted today at ANS Nuclear Cafe. You can view it here: The Nuclear Debate on the Road.

A Modest Proposal for GMP and Gaz Metro: Use the Shareholder Money

Gaz Metro

Gaz Metro of Quebec, sole owner of Vermont's Green Mountain Power (GMP), wants to acquire Vermont's other electric utility, Central Vermont Public Service (CVPS). This is generally referred to as the GMP-CVPS merger, though I see it as the GazMetro take-over of most of the utility infrastructure in Vermont. (I've got a few links about that at the bottom of this blog post.)

However, there is a problem with the merger. It's the CVPS balance sheet. It turns out that about ten years ago, CVPS made a bad choice buying power from Hydro-Quebec. That power was too expensive for the amount CVPS was allowed to charge its customers so CVPS was about to go broke. It asked for rate relief from the Vermont Public Service Board (PSB). CVPS got that rate relief, but the PSB sternly said that, if anyone ever bought CVPS, CVPS would have to return that rate-relief money: half to the rate-payers, and half to the shareholders.

Half and Half

Opinion from the blogger:

Whoa baby...hold it right there. Why did the PSB decide this? Why was half the money to be returned to the shareholders? It was the ratepayers' money that was keeping their shares from being totally worthless. So couldn't the shareholders simply thank the ratepayers and not expect any "money back" in the future?

Also, people who own stock are used to the idea that some stock prices go up, and other stock prices go down. The shareholders could have sold their CVPS stock and bought something else. They were not locked in to owning CVPS. Ratepayers, poor souls, can't switch utility companies. They just have to sit there and pay the rates.

Well, back to the story as it is evolving now. Back to the present day, when the shareholders will be paid real money, but the ratepayers will be paid in promises.

The AARP Looks at the Merger

In the original plan for the merger, GMP planned to give the money back to the shareholders as cash, but the ratepayers money would be returned as savings in their bills, due to the merger. (You can read the sordid story, including the quick rate raise that CVPS received, in preparation for these supposed savings, at my post Consumers Are Not Protected.) The AARP objected vigorously.

At that point, even the Department of Public Service (DPS) decided it had to do something. It didn't want to do anything too drastic, like insist on giving money back to the ratepayers. However, with great fanfare, DPS announced that CVPS would put the ratepayer money into a fund which would be used to make weatherization loans to some consumers. You can read about this in the Vermont Digger article: Shumlin Administration, Gaz Metro seal merger deal.

A Loan is Proposed, but a Loan is not a Refund

Speaking as an older person myself, I would say that most older people know the difference between

• receiving money that is owed to them
• borrowing more money.

The AARP was not happy with this weatherization loan plan. Greg Marchildon, Vermont State Director of the AARP, wrote in a Brattleboro Reformer op-ed

"The Vermont Public Service Board made very clear in 2001 that the ratepayers who bailed out CVPS with an emergency rate increase had to be repaid. This windfall protection provision that AARP fought for 11 years ago in front of the Public Service Board, is clearly triggered by the merger. The regulators ordered that should the company ever be sold or merged, it needed to pay back ratepayers -- before executives or shareholders profited from the sale. The bailout actually amounted to $98 million, but the Board capped it at $21 million...This is a simple matter of making good on a debt. A matter of fairness.

Instead of refunding the money back to the Vermonters who paid it, the utilities have now proposed creating an efficiency and weatherization program, which satisfies neither the debt, nor the regulator's ruling. GMP actually proposes to set up an efficiency loan fund through a third party that some ratepayers could borrow from to weatherize or make efficiency improvements. Then they would pay the utility back through their bills. Where's the refund in that?"

Emphasis added by blogger

GMP looks at that Pesky Balance Sheet, Apparently for the First Time

Well, GMP/Gaz Metro had never seen the CVPS balance sheet. They were shocked, shocked to find they might have a legal liability to ratepayers. Dottie Schnure, spokesperson for GMP, pretty much admitted this. Returning the money would be a deal-killer.

(Okay, GMP would deny this. GMP would say that of course they looked at the balance sheet. My comments are just my interpretation of Schnure's words.)

According to GMP, having to pay the money back to ratepayers puts the whole deal at risk. Here's a quote from Schnure on VPR:

"The practical outcome of the Legislature getting involved and making a decision on one aspect of a very complex case means that it does put at risk the transaction and potentially the loss of $144 million in savings to consumers."

The Legislature Looks at the Merger

Everything in Vermont gets complicated. Why does Schnure mention the legislature in the quote above?

Quite a few people in the legislature are trying to pass a bill making sure the money goes back to the ratepayer. Perhaps these legislators are concerned with the expenses of ordinary citizens, or perhaps they are concerned with what can happen to them in the next election if they are labelled as going against AARP. At any rate, they are trying to pass a bill to force GMP to refund the money.

However, other legislators and commentators object that the merger is an open docket at the Public Service Board, and the legislature should not get involved in open cases before the Board. That's what the legislature did with Vermont Yankee, and they ended up losing a court case about it.

You can see links to both sides of this question in the Vermont Tiger article: Interesting Debate.

A Modest Proposal

I have a different proposal. A very modest one. All the current excitement is centered on how the ratepayer money gets handled. Sending cold cash to the shareholders is treated as a given. I don't see why that should be the case. After all, it was ratepayer money that bailed out the shareholders when CVPS was on the verge of bankruptcy, and got emergency rate relief.

My proposal is simple.

• Start the loan fund with the shareholder half of the money, so the shareholders will contribute to weatherization in a positive way...the same way the Shumlin administration thinks the ratepayers should contribute. This should make the shareholders happy. After all, this plan was supposed to make the ratepayers happy.
• Next, send the ratepayer money right back to the ratepayers, as cold cash. These actions will keep the same money outflow rate as the current scheme, which should make Green Mountain Power happy. It's not a deal-killer. Some money (the shareholder money) will fund weatherization, which should make the DPS happy. The ratepayers will get their money as money, not loans, which will make AARP happy.

In other words, this scheme will spread happiness all around!

------------------------------------------------------

Portrait of Jonathan Swift, of Modest Proposal fame, from Wikipedia

The Gaz Metro Merger: The Consumers Are Not Being Protected

About the Public Service Board

In my most recent post, I urged people to look at the questions the Public Service Board (PSB) has asked Vermont Yankee, and make comments to the Board.

In today's post, I show that the Public Service Board and the Department of Public Service have not protected consumers about other utility issues. This post was published first in True North Reports, and is updated here. When we write the PSB about Vermont Yankee, it is worth knowing some related history.

If you don't have time to keep reading this post, here's the summary:

Question: Are Vermont consumers being protected by the Public Service Board (PSB) and the Department of Public Service (DSP)?

Answer: No

The Merger

Green Mountain Power (owned by Gaz Metro) plans to merge with Central Vermont Public Service. If this merger is approved, Gaz Metro, a Canadian gas pipeline company will own or control most of the energy infrastructure in Vermont. They will own the two electric distribution companies and the gas distribution company (Vermont Gas Systems). They will also (probably) control the two large transmission companies, TRANSCO and VELCO.

The Agencies That Protect Consumers in Vermont

Vermont has two agencies that regulate utilities and protect consumers. Vermont’s Public Service Board (PSB) oversees utility actions and sets rates. The Department of Public Service (DPS) acts as the consumer advocate in cases before the PSB. If these two agencies do their job, Vermont citizens should feel comfortable, no matter who owns the utilities.

Unfortunately, PSB and DPS are not doing their job to protect ordinary citizens and ratepayers.

Conflict of Interest at DPS

DPS is charged with protecting consumers, and many people are concerned with Shumlin’s appointment of Liz Miller as Commissioner of the DPS. Ms. Miller’s husband is managing partner of the law firm that represents Green Mountain Power, a conflict of interest situation that puts her actions as Commissioner in doubt.

Senator Vince Illuzzi was particularly concerned that Miller would not be able to do an appropriate job of supervising the merger. A major issue is preventing Green Mountain Power having monopoly control of the transmission companies. Such control by one massive company could hurt all smaller utilities. Illuzzi filed interventions at both the federal and state levels, asking for an independent counsel to supervise the merger. Many small Vermont utilities joined his interventions.

In response, the state appointed Michael Dworkin to study the matter. Dworkin made some recommendations on managing the transmission companies. Meanwhile, Ms. Miller said that the governor expected DPS to “kick the tires” on the merger deal.

However, even the appearance of conflict of interest can make DPS actions look biased. No matter how fair Miller tries to be, and how many tires she kicks, she is a Commissioner whose husband’s law firm represents one of the biggest players in the merger. Dworkin only studied one aspect of the merger case: the transmission companies. There are other issues about companies that Gaz Metro owns or will own, and these issues directly affect consumers.

Regulating the Pipeline

Gaz Metro (owner of Green Mountain Power) had another docket before the PSB recently. Gaz Metro plans to expand its Vermont Gas Supply pipeline from Burlington to Rutland. The docket before the PSB included the question: whose money will be used for this expansion? Surprisingly, PSB has allowed the pipeline company to raise rates on existing customers in order to extend the pipeline from Burlington to Rutland.

Not everyone of the PSB was in favor of raising the rates to consumers before the pipeline is built. Board member John Burke said that taxing Vermont ratepayers before they get any benefit was "unfair and improper.” Burke pointed out that Gaz Metro has hundreds of millions of dollars available for investment. He was overruled by the others on the board. Existing customers will pay for the new pipeline, even though these customers are already served by a pipeline. Existing customers will see higher gas rates, but will have no personal benefit from the pipeline expansion. The benefit goes to Gaz Metro, which will be able to build a longer pipeline without spending its own money.

Update: Gaz Metro just negotiated a $600 million dollar line of credit agreement. They have plenty of money to build the pipeline without being financed by Vermont ratepayers.

DPS, the designated protector of the consumer, did not take a stand on this case before the PSB.

Following Some Old Money on the Merger

There are other situations in which the ratepayers are not being protected. Since DPS did not step in to protect consumers, AARP is intervening about electric rates in the proposed GMP-CVPS merger.

To understand the AARP intervention, we have to follow some old money. Years ago, the PSB granted Central Vermont Public Service a rate increase, but the PSB stipulated they had to give that money back to the shareholders and rate-payers if their company was purchased. Half the rate increase money was to return to the shareholders, and half to the ratepayers. Since Central Vermont Public Service (CVPS) is now expecting to be purchased by Green Mountain Power, CVPS is obligated to give the money back to these two groups.

CVPS plans to give immediate per-share payments of $10 to their shareholders (share-holders half) while paying back the rate-payers by lowered rates due to the supposed $114 million savings from the merger over a 10 year period (rate-payers half).

Paying back the rate-payers through merger-caused savings is not going to be real money, not like a $10 bill in the shareholder’s pocket. PSB recently gave CVPS a rate increase of 4.8%, or approximately $17 million per year.

This new higher rate will more than offset the $11 million dollar per year “savings due to the merger” that CVPS expects to pass on to customers. AARP is intervening in the merger docket to protect low-income seniors (and everyone else). The DPS has not intervened.

DPS has not intervened to urge the PSB to protect the ratepayers in the gas pipeline or CVPS returning money they are obligated to return to ratepayers. Why not?

Update: The latest updates from AARP imply that the consumer rebate situation is even worse than I described. Two links:

• an article in Vermont Digger shows DPS intervened to make the merger look better (without changing the terms).
• an op-ed yesterday from the AARP asking Gaz Metro/GMP to pay its debts.

Conflict and the Appearance of Conflict

Conflict of interest is impossible to prove. If the Commissioner were not married to a lawyer whose firm represents Green Mountain Power, the DPS might well have taken the same stands. DPS might have approved of pipeline financing by existing customers. They might have been fine with CVPS plans to return money to shareholders with a check and return money to ratepayers through questionable future savings. No one can say that DPS acted this way because of this, or because of that.

However, once again, we are back to the reasons that governments and judges attempt to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest. With conflict of interest in the background, all decisions the government makes have the possible taint of bias.

Governor Shumlin is an astute politician, and he should take notice of these concerns. For any rate case involving a current or potential subsidiary of Gaz Metro, owner of Green Mountain Power, Governor Shumlin should appoint an independent counsel as consumer watchdog. He should ask Ms. Miller to step aside for that case, since her husband is an executive in a law firm representing Green Mountain Power. The independent counsel should do some serious watching over consumer pocketbooks!

If he does not take this type of action, Shumlin is just handing ammunition to his opponents.

-------

Earlier articles in this blog have described concerns with this merger. The probable monopoly ownership was covered in Who Owns the Infrastructure. Some conflict of interest concerns were covered in Governor Shumlin and GMP. This article focuses on the probable effect of these mergers on consumers.

I wrote this post for True North Reports. I am grateful for the opportunity to reprint in this blog.

The Green Mountain Power Merger: Governor Shumlin and GMP

When Governor Shumlin presented his State of the State speech on January 5, protesters against wind development stood outside the Capital dome. They weren’t just protesting a wind farm, though. They were protesting Shumlin’s overly-close relationship with Green Mountain Power (GMP), the utility that is building the wind development at Lowell Mountain.

One sign showed Shumlin in bed with big wind. Another sign claimed that the Shumlin administration is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Green Mountain Power (GMP), the company building the wind farm at Lowell.

Why were the protesters carrying these signs? They noticed that there appears to be an overly close relationship between GMP and the Shumlin administration. However, the potential dangers of such a close relationship go far beyond the Lowell Mountain concerns. As reported in a previous article at True North reports, Who Owns the Infrastructure, and reprinted on this blog GMP is poised to take over the majority of Vermont’s energy infrastructure.

They will control most of the electricity merger through an upcoming merger with Central Vermont Public Service (CVPS) and subsequent control of Vermont’s transmission infrastructure. Meanwhile, the parent company of GMP is Gaz Metro of Quebec. Gaz Metro owns Vermont Gas Systems, and plans to expand the gas pipeline deeper into Vermont. A single Canadian company, Gaz Metro, is poised to own most of the gas and electrical infrastructure in Vermont.

Conflict of Interest

The relationship between Shumlin and GMP seems overly close, but can anybody prove it is a problem? Of course not. The reason most organizations (especially government organizations) avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest is that even the appearance makes decisions suspect. With conflict of interest in the background, decisions may appear biased. There is no way to prove they were fair.

While realizing that conflicts of interest are impossible to prove, we can examine the relationship between Shumlin’s administration and Green Mountain Power.

The Inaugural Ball

Green Mountain Power’s CEO Mary Powell is a strong supporter of Governor Shumlin. For example, Powell was responsible for raising the funds for Shumlin's inaugural ball.

In two posts in the 7 Days poltical blog, Shay Totten described Powell’s role in raising money for the inaugural ball. He then described how the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) suddenly looked more favorably on ridge-line development after Shumlin took office. After the inauguration, ANR gave a go-ahead to the project despite continuing concerns about high-elevation wetlands. Before Shumlin took office, ANR scientists had said there was no way to offset the environmental effects of the wind farm development.

Wetlands and Money

For a graphic portrayal of some of the environmental issues, I recommend this video by Energize Vermont.

Why did ANR give permission for the Lowell Mountain wind farm before major environmental issues were addressed? As it happens, Green Mountain Power will lose $40 million dollars in federal tax credits if they don’t complete the project by the end of 2012. GMP’s parent company, Gaz Metro, has only $160 million a year in profits (all divisions). The United States tax credits are very significant to Gaz Metro’s bottom line.

Many environmental groups feel the Public Service Board (PSB) decision on the project was rushed and the PSB was overly influenced by the thought that GMP would lose money if they did not approve the construction.

As Energize Vermont's Lukas Snelling said in July: "The PSB and ANR must not allow GMP’s financially-driven construction schedule to undercut their obligation to protect the environment and provide all parties a say in the review process."

A Wholly-Owned Wind Farm

Green Mountain Power is building the Lowell Mountain project and will own it. In most cases, distribution utilities such as GMP buy power from other companies that own the power plants. However, in Vermont, distribution utilities are allowed to own power plants. Vermont has many small utilities and co-operatives that might disappear if they couldn’t own both the power plants and the distribution systems.

However, the post-merger Green Mountain Power will be an almost-monopolistic company in terms of distribution. For a company like this to own a power production facility could be considered a step backwards in terms of utility governance.

Natural Gas and GMP

GMP is owned by a gas company, Gaz Metro. Gas and wind are a natural pairing. Wind farms have about 35% capacity factor at best, and must be backed up with a type of power that can come on-line quickly when the wind dies down. Wind energy is usually backed up with simple cycle gas turbines: these operate like a jet engine, coming on-line very rapidly. No power plant that raises steam can come on-line quickly enough to back up wind energy. Coal, nuclear and biomass plants all raise steam and cannot back up wind energy.

It is Named Gaz Metro

As a matter of fact, the wind turbine will be “backed up” is a bit of a misstatement. Since the wind turbine will only operate about one third of the time (35% capacity factor), two-thirds of the electricity will come from the “back-up” facility. In other words, build a wind turbine, and and the back-up gas plant will provide twice as much electricity as the wind turbine provides.

Gaz Metro plans to bring its gas pipeline down to Rutland. It can perhaps put in a gas-fired power plant to back up the wind turbines that GMP (another Gaz Metro company) builds or encourages. The Comprehensive Energy Plan ecourages gas fired power plants.

As Guy Page of VTEP said, the new Comprehensive Vermont Energy Plan “talks a lot about building…medium sized natural gas plants.” The Comprehensive Energy Plan was put together very quickly, over the space of a few months, by Governor Shumlin's administration.

Wind and Gas and Robert Kennedy Jr.

The gas industry recognizes that wind can encourage natural gas use for electricity generation. For example, in a 2010 speech to a Colorado Oil and Gas Industry convention, Robert Kennedy Jr. describes his work on encouraging renewables. He ends the speech with a crowd-pleasing statement: “The plants we are building, the wind plants and the solar plants, are gas plants.”

Probable Changes in Vermont Energy, After the Merger

In short, if the administration favors GMP and encourages the merger (which they are doing), Vermont will have its infrastructure run by a foreign utility. Vermont will encourage the mixture of wind turbines and gas power plants that are very profitable for that utility. This is a long way from the situation we have now, where the large distribution utilities do not own power plants.

There are many reasons to think this situation will be worse for Vermont ratepayers than the current situation. The Vermont Public Service Board (PSB) and Department of Public Service (DPS) are supposed to protect Vermont’s interests. When Vermonters have suspicions about overly cozy relationships between politicians and power companies, these agencies are supposed to protect the consumer. Are the DPS and PSB doing their jobs?

----------------------------

The pictures of Lowell Mountain Protesters at the State of the State speech were shared by the writers of the Lowell Mountain News blog. For more information on that controversy, go to the blog

http://lowellmountainsnews.wordpress.com/

Note that the Lowell Mountain bloggers were very generous. They did not see this post before agreeing to share their pictures. Their loan of the pictures does not mean endorsement of the contents of this post.

References: Shay Totten articles: http://7d.blogs.com/blurt/2011/01/corporations-line-up-to-fund-shumlin-inaugural.html

http://www.7dvt.com/2011tilting-turbines

Lukas Snelling quote: http://vtdigger.org/2011/07/10/green-mountain-power/

Guy Page quote: http://www.vpr.net/news_detail/92570/shumlin-energy-plan-criticized-for-natural-gas-com/

Rod Adams blog, with a more extended video of Robert Kennedy Jr and more context on his statement: http://atomicinsights.com/2010/11/robert-f-kennedy-jr-tells-the-colorado-oil-and-gas-association-that-wind-and-solar-plants-are-gas-plants.html

This post is the second in a series. The first was Gaz Metro: Who Owns the Vermont Infrastructure.

I wrote this post for True North Reports. I am grateful for the opportunity to reprint in this blog.

Natural Gas Interests and the Sierra Club and Vermont

Natural Gas Interests

The Sierra Club has accepted $25 million in funding from natural gas companies. It is not clear to me that the Club has actually revealed all their fossil fuel funding. This story was broken yesterday by Time Magazine's Bryan Walsh.

This is fresh news. While there is still some news on the Vermont Yankee front, it is pretty repetitive stuff. As reported by Bob Audette in the Brattleboro Reformer, nuclear opponents attempt to maneuver the Public Service Board by saying the same old things. Their news will be on-going for a while. It's time to follow this Sierra Club news.

I Told You So?

Rod Adams of Atomic Insights kept blogging that nuclear opponents were probably in the pay of the natural gas industry. Many of us were leery of anything that looked like a "conspiracy theory." It looks now like Adams was right about some of the opponents. Here's a 2009 post from Rod Adams about Carl Pope of the Sierra Club extolling natural gas.

To find some more Adam's posts on the natural gas connection, search the Atomic Insights blog for posts labelled "smoking gun."

Local Natural Gas

I have never thought that all local opponents were funded by the natural gas industry. Also, I think natural gas has an important place in the energy future of the country, as I wrote at ANS Nuclear Cafe. But I don't like to see gas companies wrapping themselves in green to try to destroy nuclear power.

In 2010, I discovered that the Conservation Law Foundation, a fierce opponent of Vermont Yankee, received money to help build a new natural gas plant in New Hampshire. I wrote a post about the gas plant: Follow the Money. The Conservation Law Foundation didn't like some subsequent publicity they received after that post. Oh well. I'm not popular with them. Sometime during high school, I stopped trying to be popular with everyone!

Gaz Metro and Vermont

Meanwhile, in 2012, Gaz Metro, a Canadian gas company, is positioned to take over most of the energy infrastructure in Vermont. The new Comprehensive Energy Plan for Vermont talks a good game about an all-renewables future, but the near-term recommendations center on an expanded gas pipeline (built for Gaz Metro by increased rate-payer fees during construction, before any gas flows through the pipeline). Another part of the plan is to build small and medium-sized gas plants. For an overview, I suggest Howard Shaffer's excellent post: The Vermont Energy plan relies too much on fossil fuels.

One gas company funded the Sierra Club, and another one is taking over Vermont energy infrastructure. That doesn't mean that all nuclear opponents are funded by natural gas, but clearly, some of them are.

An Overview of the Gaz Metro Takeover Plans

The Sierra Club revelation was new to me, but I was aware of the Vermont issue with Gaz Metro. In recent months, I wrote a series of articles for True North Reports on the Gaz Metro takeover of Vermont infrastructure. I plan to update these articles and post them on this blog over the next week or so.

Meanwhile, you can read the original posts here:

Part One: Who Owns the Infrastructure

Part Two: Shumlin and Green Mountain Power

Part Three: Are the Consumers Being Protected?

-------------

Natural Gas Processing Plant image from Wikimedia.