Showing posts with label Total Energy Study. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Total Energy Study. Show all posts

Monday, July 20, 2015

Vermont Energy Plan is Basically Unworkable

2010 Known Electric Resources from PSD
Blog post about this at ANS Nuclear Cafe
Input requested

The Vermont Public Service Department (PSD)  is revising the Vermont Comprehensive Energy Plan which they issued in 2011.  They want public input by July 24,  in other words, this Friday.

Here's the main link to their page about updating the plan. The lower section of this post contains links for commenting.

Yes, the plan has been under serious discussion for about a month.  First PSD had invitation meetings (late June), now they are having public meetings (July).  Then they will issue a draft 2015 plan and request further comments later in the year. You can see local timeline here.  The 2011 plan is one of the base documents.

The Charts and the Questions

On the morning of June 30, the subject of the invitation meeting was Energy Supply Resources. Asa Hopkins is Director the Planning and Energy Resources Division of the PSD. Here is a link to his presentation. (You can see all the meeting agendas and presentations at this link.)

From Hopkin's presentation, this is the current version of the 2010 chart:

 2015 Known Vermont Electric Sources from PSD

Yes, it looks familiar.

 We've got the big green part at the bottom: HydroQuebec.  HydroQuebec falls off somewhat as the old contracts finish, but it is still steady.  Above it is the steady purple of Vermont and New York State hydropower, and the increased level of nuclear (medium blue) as the Seabrook contracts begin. Then there's that huge red part, "residual mix" (aka "buying from the grid or short-term contracts") that is supposed to diminish.  As a matter of fact, it's supposed to go away entirely.

After all, the Vermont plan is for 90% renewables, and the chart shows that we already have a big section of nuclear (relatively new long-term contracts). Nuclear is clean-air, but the Vermont plan isn't about clean air and low carbon, it's about renewables and only renewables.  In other words, with the nuclear purchase in place, in order to meet the Vermont plan, we really can't afford to buy a single electron from the grid.  We also can't afford to expand our use of natural gas.

All that white space at the top right must be filled with renewables.

The last few slides in the presentation show the PSD grappling with this problem. A slide labelled "Question #1 background cont." includes the following:
"Expected identified resources ….leave 46% of the electric portfolio undetermined."

Here come the cars and heat pumps

If you look at the 2015 chart above, you will notice that the line at the top (how much electricity Vermont is projected to require) slopes up gently to the right.  On that chart, the Vermont electricity requirement number seems to hang right around 6,000,000 MWh (6 TWh) for fifteen years.

But if you look at another chart in the same viewgraph presentation, you get quite a different picture.  This is Vermont projected electricity use from the TES (Total Energy Study)  done for the PSD.  The TES study included all sectors of energy use, and predicted that Vermont can lower total energy use significantly.  However, to do this, Vermont will use considerably more electricity (electric vehicles and heat pumps). The chart below sums this up.


Future Vermont Electricity Use, from Total Energy Study and PSD presentation


In this chart, as building heat (heat pumps) and transportation (electric vehicles) kick in, the Vermont energy use goes from around 5 TWh in 2015, to around 9 TWh in 2050.

In other words, the Known Electric Resources chart ended in 2030, with just a gentle uptick in demand, as shown by the top line of the chart. For that top line, PSD  used a VELCO projection of energy use, instead of referring to their own PSD studies.  I don't know what study they used for the "46% of the portfolio" number.

However,  if Vermont really runs all sectors on renewables and therefore electricity, we are going to need much more electricity than estimated by VELCO.  Vermont electricity use practically doubles by 2050. It looks to me as if "46% of the portfolio…. is undetermined" could be a serious underestimate of the problem.

Where will we get so many renewables?  I think that buying from Hydro Quebec seems the only realistic option. And of course, HQ will love the sight of Vermont needing to buy their power!  Talk about Vermont having no bargaining position whatsoever.

Ah well. We can always write to the PSD, and encourage them to read their own reports.

--------------
To comment to PSD

 PSD has specific questions,  which they describe in this document:

http://publicservice.vermont.gov/sites/psd/files/Pubs_Plans_Reports/State_Plans/Comp_Energy_Plan/2015/2015%20CEP%20Update%20Process%20kickoff%20FINAL.pdf

You can make comments through SurveyMonkey

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/?sm=1NTqHoQRyM1MBw1NQ9xeThq78cUOihKpFdnD4A2EqZE%3d

Or, you can answer questions through SurveyMonkey https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/?sm=kjY2yQok9BGK%2f38FGcFM%2b6pO9xwR%2fNdD7QARhCJpNA8%3d

Once again, the main page about the 2015 plan is here.

The 2011 Plan, the Reports since 2011, and the 2015 plan

The 2011 Comprehensive Plan  was quite lengthy.  It consists of five documents: a one-page overview, a 14 page summary, a 314 page main document, an appendix document (each appendix is separately paginated: I guess the appendix document at 200 pages) and a 26 page "public involvement report." (This last report contains a very amusing typo at the bottom of most pages.  I know that everybody makes mistakes, including me. No big deal. Still, I find my little smiles where I can.) You can find links to all these documents at 2011 Comprehensive Energy Plan.

On to the 2015 plan.

There's a ten-page document of questions about the 2015 plan CEP Process Kickoff Final.  This document contains a lengthy list of energy reports that have been issued by state agencies since 2011.   Yes.  There's a lot of reading ahead if you want to read everything before commenting on the 2015 plan.

You won't have time to read all this before Friday.  I hope this blog post has given some guidance.



Monday, January 20, 2014

My Comment on the Vermont Total Energy Study

You Can Comment on the Total Energy Study

Comment Period Closing On Wednesday January 22

The Vermont Department of Public Service has written a new planning document for Vermont's future energy use: The Total Energy Study Legislative Report.  You can link to the report and its back-up documentation on the Total Energy Study web page of the Department of Public Service.   You can also link directly to the report and appendixes.

The public comment period on this study is only open through Wednesday, January 22, 2014.  To write a comment,  use this email address: PSD.TotalEnergy@state.vt.us.

I encourage you to comment.

My Comment to the Department of Public Service on the Total Energy Study

Dear DPS

First, a thank-you to Asa Hopkins for sending me information about the RFP for the total energy study.

Second, a comment on the study.  It's a document about setting policy, and most of the policies seem to be financial. There are requirements to use renewable fuels, with financial burdens imposed if you don't (TREES), carbon taxes, etc. 

With this study, the stick is in place to drive the state energy use to 90% renewables, but...where's the road?  We're whipping the horse, but where is the horse heading?  What will 90% renewables look like for the whole economy?  More wind turbines?  Only biodiesel and ethanol fuel sold in Vermont?  A law against private vehicles unless they are electric?  What is the goal here?

In my opinion, by not analyzing actual technologies and how they will be employed, the study is basically a cop-out. I am sorry to say this, because I was hoping for something better in terms of Vermont's future energy use.  Time, energy and intelligence went into this study. In some ways, the study is quite admirable.  It is, however, the wrong study for setting goals for our energy future.

Meredith Angwin
-----------

Background on the Total Energy Study

Basically, the Vermont Comprehensive Energy Plan was put into place in 2011.  This plan mandates  90% of all of Vermont's energy will come from renewables in 2050. Despite its title, however, the Comprehensive Plan does not contain an actual plan for achieving this goal.  (I wrote about this disconnect in an earlier blog post and op-ed.)


By legislative requirement, the Department of Public Service is putting together a Total Energy Study on how to move toward the goal.  To date, in my opinion, the Total Energy Study has focused mostly on financial policy incentives (carbon taxes, fuel switching with targets for renewable content of fuels, cap and trade schemes).  There's also some discussion of methodologies for evaluating technology choices.  


Please comment, I think

So, here I am, urging my readers to comment on the study, but frankly, it is difficult to comment on it.  The people at the Department of Public Service have worked hard on the Total Energy Study, but it is not easy to get a handle on the study or recommendations.  To me, reading the study didn't feel like reading an energy article ("how many wind turbines might be built under this scenario?") but instead, it felt like reading something in a political science course.  

Finally, I realized that: my confusion was actually my comment!  So I commented as above.

I urge you to read the study (or at least the executive summary) and write your own comment.

Saturday, January 11, 2014

Updated: Renewables Plus Taxes: The Total Energy Study

Right now, you can comment on the Total Energy Study, the follow-on report for Vermont's Comprehensive Energy Plan.  Comments are open until January 22.  Email address:   PSD.TotalEnergy@state.vt.us


----Also, please see the update at the end of this post.---

The Earlier Version: the Vermont Comprehensive Energy Plan

In 2011, the Vermont Department of Public Service released the Vermont Comprehensive Energy Plan, a plan for moving Vermont to 90% renewables for ALL energy use (not just electricity) by 2050.

Except it wasn't a plan for the future. In my opinion, the Comprehensive Energy Plan was about gas pipelines, which is why I called my post about it: Hurry Up. Hurry Up. Renewables. Don't Pay Attention to the Gas Pipeline. The Plan used a lot of space talking about natural gas.   Later, I wrote an op-ed:  Vermont's Renewable Energy Plan is Wishful Thinking.  I quoted a woman who spoke about the Comprehensive Plan at a meeting before the Public Service Board:  "It's not a plan, it's a collection of slogans."

Yes, in my opinion, the Comprehensive Energy Plan was a collection of slogans, along with some encouragement of natural gas.  There was no plan involved.

The Total Energy Study: A Plan for Policies

Now the Department of Public Service has a new plan--the Total Energy Study.  You could describe the Total Energy Study (TES)  as  planning document meant to help prioritize policies, and the policies will help build a plan which will fulfill the goals (or slogans) of the Comprehensive Energy Plan.

You can find the links to the TES documents on the Public Service Department website. Here's the main report and here are the appendixes.  The report was released on December 16, and the public comment period lasts through January 22. You can comment address: PSD.TotalEnergy@state.vt.us

Is TES a plan?  Well, yes, but not the kind of plan I would have expected.  It's mainly about policy choices, not technical choices, and I'm kind of a technical-choice wonk.  Here's a quote from a section called "What this report is not" from page 12 of the main document: While the Total Energy Study describes several policy and technology scenarios that are expected to achieve the State’s goals, these reports are not intended to be or replace the Comprehensive Energy Plan. Neither this report nor the TES Final Report will articulate or recommend a definitive pathway forward.

TES is about policy-- mostly fiscal policy.  TES is being written under contract to the Department of Public Service by Dunsky Energy Consulting, a consulting firm based in Montreal.  Besides public comments,  there were "stakeholder focus groups" on this study all last summer. The list of stakeholders is in the appendixes to the report. Dr. Asa Hopkins of the Department was kind enough to send me the Request for Proposal for this stage of the study.  It is a public document, and I link to it here.

The Policies: Raising Money for the State

 In my opinion, the "policy choices" in TES are mostly about raising money for the state government.  There are many words in this document, but the main comments are about financial policy: how to build incentives for the change to 90% renewables.  These policies include:
  • carbon taxes 
  • cap and trade 
  • requirements for fuel-switching (I suspect if you don't switch you may have to pay a fine).
The TES document includes lengthy comments about other issues, but, basically, financial sections jumped out at me.  This may be because I am a tax-payer and rate-payer in Vermont, though not a "stakeholder." I am a simple member of the public.

Carbon Taxes and Other Requirements

Carbon taxes, according to TES, may be "revenue-neutral" with cutting back some other taxes, but that is hardly promised. Also, when I read something called "requirements for fuel-switching," I wonder how the requirements will work.  I suspect that police will not come and shut down a business if it doesn't fuel-switch well enough. Fuel-switching won't be quite that draconian!  I am pretty sure that these requirements will be enforced with....fines.  In other words, fuel-switching requirements will be another source of revenue for the government.

I also recommend John McClaughry's excellent commentary on this plan: Vermont's New Energy Gosplan. (Note: John McClaughry is vice-president and co-founder of the Ethan Allen Institute, and I am director of the Energy Education Project of that institute.)

Public Comments

According to the Public Service Department web page on the Total Energy Study, a public meeting was held in November, before the study was published in December.  However, the Framing Report for the study was available at that time.

You can send your comments on the study to the Public Service Department through email.  I encourage you to comment.  Comments are due by January 22. PSD.TotalEnergy@state.vt.us

I also urge you to read the study documents, not just my opinions of the study.  Draw your own conclusions and write your own comments.

 ---------

Thank you to Dr. Asa Hopkins

At this point, I want to give a hat-tip to Dr. Asa Hopkins, director of the Planning and Energy Resources Division of the Department of Public Service.  Dr. Hopkins has been very helpful.

I found it odd that Vermont needed a Montreal company to do a study here in Vermont,  since we have so many universities and think-tanks in this state.  I asked Hopkins about this, and he promptly and kindly sent me the Department's request for proposal and a list of the groups that answered that request.  The contract for this study was awarded by competitive solicitation.
-----

Update and Correction: Another Thank-You to Asa Hopkins!

Dr. Hopkins sent me these corrections this morning, which I am happy to post, and I apologize for the mistakes:


Ms. Angwin,
Two quick corrections/clarifications regarding the TES:
1)      “TES is being written under contract to the Department of Public Service by Dunsky Energy Consulting, a consulting firm based in Montreal.“ The Legislative Report to which you direct your readers was not written by Dunsky Energy Consulting – it was written by PSD staff. DEC is doing qualitative and quantitative analysis for us, under the contract from the RFP you requested. Their work will be complete in the late spring. The PSD will publish a final TES Report over the summer, building on Dunsky’s work but also reflecting our own analysis.
2)      “Also, when I read something called "requirements for fuel-switching," I wonder how the requirements will work.” The TES does not contain anything called “requirements for fuel-switching.”
Best,
Asa


Indeed, Dr. Hopkins is correct. The words "requirements for fuel switching" do not appear in the report. My error and I apologize!

 I was using these words to summarize the following section of the report (page 2) I definitely should have used the words of the report itself. I am sorry. The report lists various policies under consideration, and this is one of them. A direct quote is below, but I have added the italics.

"Renewable targets with carbon revenue: Draws from the previous two policy sets; here, the state would set a target for the renewable energy content of all fuels, placing a non-binding obligation on energy suppliers. If the target were not met within a given sector, however, the obligation would become mandatory within that sector or that sector’s carbon tax would be increased. This obligation structure would be paired with a small economy-wide carbon tax used to raise revenue applied to programs directed at making it easier for obligated parties to meet their target obligations."