The New York Clean Energy Standard

The victory

I was in Albany today, and the New York Department of Public Service passed the Clean Energy Standard.  It was a great day and a fabulous victory for clean air!  New York State officially acknowledged that nuclear energy is a low-carbon source, and it deserves to be supported, in a similar manner that renewables are supported.  (Nuclear will receive far less money per kWh than renewables, however.)

A victory like this cannot be ascribed to only one person or one organization.  Many people and many groups did a huge amount of work to make this happen.  That said, I have to give a huge amount of credit to the Environmental Progress organization, Michael Shellenberger and Eric Meyer, along with the Mothers for Nuclear organization, with Sarah Spath and others.  There will be much more written about this in future days, but I wanted to get a blog post about it up  today.

My day in Albany

I also wanted to give a first-hand idea of what it was like to be there.

My visit to Albany started last night with a dinner with nuclear activists from all over the country: California, Ohio, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Virginia.  Rod Adams includes pix of the dinner at his blog post: Fighting climate change with best available tools. 

The next morning, we gathered for a rally before the Department of Public Service meeting.  We met in a ground-floor corridor of the building in which the meeting took place. The meeting room was on the 19th floor.  Various people spoke. I spoke about the consequences of closing Vermont Yankee, and why we have to avoid closing nuclear plants. Eric Meyer led us in a rousing rendition of "The Battle Hymn of the Atom" (The Truth Goes Marching On). And then we went to the meeting rooms.  Tim Knauer's article in Syracuse.com has a picture of part of the scene at the rally. Dozens of CNY residents flood Albany meeting on nuclear subsidies. 

We went into the meeting room. I had the good luck to get a seat and be able to stay in the meeting room itself: the department had to open three "overflow" rooms with video feeds because of the large crowd.  I heard the historical decision to support all kinds of clean energy: renewable AND nuclear.  I think the best post on this is Shellenberger's post at the Environmental Progress blog: Big New York Victory Shows How Far Nuclear Still Has to Go.  This post also has pictures of the celebration outside after the ruling.

It's good to have a victory.

Video: Here's a good nine-minute video about today's events, with Sarah Spath and Michael Shellenberger.
http://www.twcnews.com/nys/capital-region/capital-tonight-interviews/2016/08/1/michael-shellenberg-sarah-spath-080116.html

Vermont Did Lead the Way: Guest post by George Clain

Carbon Dioxide

Once again some legislators want us all to pay a carbon tax so Vermont can lead the way in carbon reduction. Missing from this rhetoric is the fact that Vermont once DID lead the way: when Vermont Yankee was operating, we had the lowest carbon emissions per capita for electricity production.

Then Vermont Yankee’s power contract expired in March 2012 and the plant closed in December 2014. Vermont went from enjoying a healthy, affordable, steady diet of low-cost, carbon-free power to a brownish admixture of nuclear, hydro, natural gas, coal and oil power, with a garnish of in-state renewable. Research shows that in-state renewable power has grown by just six percent of the total power load since March 2012. That six percent “solution” is really no solution at all climate-wise, because the renewable industry sells its renewable energy credits to out-of-state gas, coal and oil power producers so they can keep pouring smoke into the air and look more “green” than they actually are. If you think the Vermont renewable power industry is leading the way, ask yourself, “leading the way where? And for whom?”

Carbon taxes and RECS are just one struggling industry’s attempt to get state government to rescue them from having a financially weak product by handing them their competition’s money. Real carbon reduction will come when New England energy planners prioritize existing high-volume, low-carbon generators like hydro and nuclear. Until then, we will just add tiny amounts of renewable power every year while burning more and more fossil fuels.  This is not a problem solver for global warming or for fixing the out of control spending in Montpelier.

George Clain

Barre, VT

--------
This letter to the editor has appeared in several newspapers in Vermont.  The author, George  Clain,  is past president and business manager of IBEW local 300 (at Vermont Yankee) and has been active in energy safety and policies for over 15 years.  The letter appeared recently in True North Reports.

Note: within Vermont, it is well known that our utilities do not have to buy RECs (Renewable Energy Credits), and therefore the renewable generators sell the RECs out-of-state, allowing the same renewable energy production to be counted twice: Once within Vermont, and once out-of-state.  Therefore, our RECs are not very green. Here's a Vt Digger report on the REC controversy. The bill passed during this legislative session, but it was a somewhat different bill  of course.

Trojan Cows and Grid Facts: Op-Ed

Non-Trojan Cow

The Cow

On July 1, a group of people opposed to the continued operation of Vermont Yankee protested at the nuclear power plant’s gates. One prop they used to dramatize their belief that there are better energy options than nuclear power was a hollow “Trojan Cow” they pulled to the demonstration. Some protesters pulled mock solar panels out of the cow, while others held whirligigs representing wind turbines. The cow sculpture even included a representation of manure, representing “cow power” energy produced from farm methane. The theme was clear: Vermont Yankee will be replaced with renewables.

Well, that is simply not true, at least in the foreseeable future. Closing Vermont Yankee will not bring a burst of renewables to market to replace its power.

Grid Power

Closing Vermont Yankee would mean buying more power from the New England grid to make up for Vermont Yankee’s supply. Grid power is approximately 58 percent fossil fuel, 28 percent nuclear and 12 percent hydro plus renewables. Wind, solar and farm methane together account for less than 1 percent of the power generated in New England.

What would closing Vermont Yankee mean? More solar power on the grid? No. With or without Vermont Yankee, renewables are expensive, and they are not coming on line quickly.

On the other hand, fossil fuel plants are abundant suppliers to the New England grid, supplying the majority of grid power. Many fossil fuel plants operate only part-time. The part-time plants run when they are needed to satisfy the power requirements on hot summer days or cold winter evenings. They also operate when nuclear plants are down for refueling.

The New England Grid responds to nuclear refueling
From Vermont Dept Public Service  presentation

If Vermont Yankee closed, existing fossil fuel plants would compensate by running longer hours and making more power. If the Vermont Yankee protesters had wanted to stage a more accurate dramatization, they would have pulled a model of a gas or coal plant from their Trojan Cow’s belly, not a cardboard solar panel.

Renewables: Too Slow, and Too Expensive

Or perhaps the demonstrators were claiming that shutting down nuclear plants will bring more rapid development of renewable energy, even if we’re forced to use more fossil fuels for a “short while.”

Well, a “short while” is likely to be very long.

For example, the Vermont state energy plan calls for the state to meet 90 percent of its total energy needs from renewable sources by 2050. That’s an ambitious goal considering that Vermont does not meet its current renewable energy goals and has no prospects of meeting them in the near future. The Vermont energy plan established a goal of having the state use 20 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2017. Even using optimistic assumptions about project completion, the state will attain only the 16 percent mark in by that date. In 2009, the state had 13 percent of its electricity from renewables (mostly in-state hydro). A growth of 3 percentage points over eight years ( 13 to 16%, 2009 to 2017) is not very impressive.

Perhaps the rate of growth of renewables is accelerating? Not really. Last year, the Vermont Legislature voted against having an aggressive Renewable Portfolio Standard for Vermont. Such a standard might raise the percentage of renewables in Vermont, but it would also raise Vermont electricity rates to unacceptable levels. Renewable growth is slow in neighboring states for similar reasons. In short, closing Vermont Yankee would have the regional result of requiring more fossil fuel to supply the New England grid.

Vermont Is An Island?

Within Vermont, many anti-nuclear activists don’t seem to care much about the regional issue. They often say that the power from Vermont Yankee doesn’t matter to Vermont, because “Vermont is no longer using any Vermont Yankee power.”

Not true. In March of this year, the power contracts between Vermont utilities and Vermont Yankee ended. Vermont utilities no longer buy Vermont Yankee power. However people in Vermont are still using Vermont Yankee power.

That sounds weird, but realize that buying power and using power are different, because power from different sources blends together on the grid. The supply on the grid depends on the power plants, transmission lines and end-users. These don’t change when contracts change.

Buying and Paying

Who pays for the power is a different matter altogether: Payment depends on agreements made between plants and utilities and regulators. The day after Vermont Yankee stopped selling power to Vermont utilities, Vermont consumers used the same actual power mix as they had used the day before. However, on that day, Vermont consumers began paying for power in a different manner. Among other changes, Vermont consumers began paying for Seabrook power, according to a contract between Green Mountain Power and Seabrook. This did not mean that Seabrook power suddenly began streaming into local power lines.

Once again, we have to take into account the regional nature of the grid. Power contracts determine payment methods, but contracts don’t determine power routing and use — that is determined by plant availability and geography.

Power blends together on the grid. If a plant goes off-line, other plants take up the slack. When nuclear plants go off-line, fossil fuel plants step up and produce replacement power.

(Note: Howard Shaffer wrote an excellent description of the grid at his recent guest post: Where's the Magic Switch?)

Deception 

Protesters used a Trojan Cow to suggest that if Vermont Yankee closed, renewables would take its place. Perhaps the use of a Trojan animal was more apt than the demonstrators intended. After all, the original Trojan horse was designed to deceive. In this case, the people that the demonstrators are deceiving about the consequences of closing Vermont Yankee start with...themselves.

-----
This is a slightly edited version of an op-ed I wrote for my local paper, the Valley  News.  I wrote this op-ed about the July 1 "Trojan Cow" protest at Vermont Yankee. It appeared in the Valley News on Sunday, July 29, but the Valley News puts very little of its content on-line.   I felt this op-ed fit in well with Howard Shaffer's recent blog post about the grid: Where's the Magic Switch.

You can watch a three-minute video of the demonstration on YouTube.

The Measured Move to Renewables: Valley News Opinion

I wrote this editorial last month for my local paper.  I am happy to share an edited version on my blog.

The Measured Move to Renewables in Vermont

By Meredith Angwin

Valley News Editorial, May 20, 2012

Neil Daniels and Chuck Theall 
Springfield Biomass Plant

Not A Renewable Portfolio Standard 

Just before adjourning, the Vermont Legislature passed a heavily-debated renewable portfolio standards bill. They passed it at the last minute, only after stripping out the renewable portfolio standards component. Is this good news or bad news?  Should Vermont residents worry that the stripped bill implies bad things for the future of Vermont renewables?

I don’t think it’s a cause for worry. Actually, I think the lawmakers have deftly crafted a bill that promotes green energy while simultaneously moderating the increased cost of purchasing renewable energy.

The Springfield Biomass Plant


The concept of a “renewable portfolio” might best be illustrated by examining the finances of the biomass plant in Springfield, NH-- an operation familiar to many Upper Valley residents who see its tall stack from Interstate 89 in Georges Mills. The plant makes 19 megawatts of electricity by burning trees and wood chips. It has the latest pollution- control equipment, including electrostatic precipitators to catch the fly-ash and selective catalytic reduction to control nitrogen oxides. The plant sells fly-ash as a soil amendment and sells tree-bark to landscapers.

It’s a good thing the Springfield plant sells all these byproducts, because it sells its electricity for about one cent per kilowatt-hour more than it pays for the wood fuel to produce it. That margin doesn’t sound like enough money to keep the plant staffed 24/7, buy anhydrous ammonia for the nitrogen oxide control and so forth. (Details of the pricing are proprietary, of course.) When I visited the plant in the fall, the plant manager said that the plant would probably not be profitable, except that it also sells RECs.

RECs

Log Piles at the Springfield Plant

RECs are Renewable Energy Certificates. A state with a Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) requires RECs. Programs vary from state to state, but basically, when a renewable energy provider places a kWh of power onto the grid, it also generates a REC for one kWh. In states with an RPS,  the utilities must buy a prescribed portion of their power from renewable sources. How do the utilities prove they have purchased the right amount of renewables? They use RECs to prove their purchases to their regulators.

However, the regulations have another twist. A power plant can sell RECs separately from selling the power. So a renewable-energy plant can sell power to the grid, and separately sell RECs to a utility that needs to present them to its regulators. This is what the Springfield plant does. As a matter of fact, there’s an interstate auction site for RECs.

No RECs Needed in Vermont

Vermont does not have an RPS, but it does have other incentives for renewables. The two major incentives are the “standard offer” program for small scale  renewable producers, and the SPEED program for bigger producers.  Both these programs require utilities to buy renewable power, but neither program requires RECs. Vermont renewable suppliers can sell their RECs to out-of-state utilities. Therefore, Vermont renewable providers can add to their profits with out-of-state money.

When the long-debated Vermont RPS bill had the portfolio standard stripped from it, it meant that Vermont utilities were still not required to buy RECs.  The bill did not change the SPEED program for large generation sources. It did expand the standard offer program for small-scale sources. Instead of requiring Vermont utilities to buy up to 50 MW of small-scale renewables, they are now required to buy up to 127 MW.

Mixed Feelings Toward RECs

Not everyone was happy with the final bill the legislature passed. Some environmentalists complained that allowing Vermont utilities to sell RECs discourages the development of renewable projects in other states.  Other states can burn fossil fuels while meeting their own RPS goals by purchasing RECs from Vermont.  These environmentalists call Vermont’s renewables program “brown power” ¬- a step down from “green power.”

 Meanwhile, utility managers take a more pragmatic view. David Hallquist, CEO of Vermont Electric Co-operative, says that if Vermont had had REC requirements, he might have used RECs instead of buying renewables directly: this choice would have been more cost-effective for his utility. As he wrote: “Utilities will simply buy power from gas-fired sources and RECs from other states… (With RECs available, we would not have been likely) to support the Kingdom Community Wind project.”

Hallquist implicitly acknowledged that renewables are more costly than conventional power. Vermont’s current programs increase consumer power costs, and a Renewable Portfolio Standard would add to that cost.  Power runs 4 to 6 cents per kWh(wholesale) on the grid. The Vermont standard offer program requires utilities to pay 9 cents to 27 cents per kWh for renewables, according to the charts on the program website.

Vesta Wind Turbine

Will People Pay for Renewables?

Are people willing to pay more for renewables? The evidence is mixed. Higher electricity costs have negative effects on Vermont businesses. Meanwhile, many people say they are willing to pay more for renewable power, but few actually choose to pay more. Only 2 percent of CVPS customers - 3,300 customers out of 160,000 - have chosen to purchase more expensive, renewable “Cow Power”--power produced by methane from waste digesters on dairy farms.

Considering the costs and issues with renewable development, Vermont legislators ended up passing a good bill. It expands the standard offer for small producers, which will definitely cost money, but it isn’t an RPS law. Therefore, some Vermont renewable costs can be met by out-of-state money from selling RECs.  Rep. Margaret Cheney, D-Norwich and vice chair of the House Committee on Natural Resources and Energy, summed up the change in the bill: “The major concerns were the cost impact of a renewable portfolio standard.”

Cost is an important concern, and the Legislature deserves credit for addressing it. Meanwhile, the RPS laws of other states will help underwrite the costs of renewables in Vermont.

-----------

More about the Springfield Power Plant: Photo of Chuck Theall (plant manager) and Neil Daniels (local engineer) at the Springfield power plant.  My visit was part of an ILEAD class that toured seven local power plants.  Robert Hargraves and I led the class.  My blog posts about the Springfield visit are here and here.  Hargraves blog post about it is here. For more information on the course, see Energy Safari.

Alan Panebaker articles about RPS energy bill, in Vermont Digger.

• Energy Bill Gets Last Minute Overhaul
• Final Energy Bill Minus RPS

David Hallquist Op-Ed in Vermont Digger

Note: Vermont Digger site seems to be down now.  I hope these links work later...

Standard Offer Rates in Vermont

Percentage paying for cow power from two sources:  Cow Power Seeks New Customers (3,300 customers) January 2012, and CVPS at a glance (160,000 customers)