Nuclear Opponents View of New Hydro in Vermont

New Hydro Power in Vermont

I blogged recently about the potential for new in-state hydro power in Vermont.  Quoting many studies, I concluded that not much new in-state hydro power is available for Vermont.  My estimate was about 25 MW possible. Please read the entire post for the justification of this number.

Vermont Yankee opponents, on the other hand, often say there is much more hydro available for Vermont.  Among the opponents, VPIRG is the most honest: their  Repowering Vermont report predicted only 15 MW expansion in hydro power.

Other opponents wave their hands in the air and claim that new hydro in Vermont can be a serious addition to the fuel mix in Vermont.  They don't state numbers and they don't state references. They don't adhere to the generally accepted rules of evidence.  They don't...

Aw heck.  I'll just quote them.

Evidence, Pre-Filed Testimony, and Loaded Questions

On February 14, I attended a Public Service Board hearing about the Certificate of Public Good for Vermont Yankee. At that hearing, Entergy presented Jeffrey Tranen as an expert witness.  You can read Mr. Tranen's resume here, and you can read his pre-filed testimony for the Board at the relicensing docket.  Tranen has held responsible positions with grid operators and utilities. Tranen testified on the need for reliability and a good fuel mix on the grid.

Vermont Yankee (620 MW)
Vernon Dam (34 MW)

In general, substantive issues are supposed to be entered into the docket as pre-filed testimony.  You can see volumes of pre-filed testimony at the relicensing docket site, above.

New England Coalition is an old-line nuclear opponent, and an intervenor in the docket.  The lawyer for the New England Coalition was Brice Simon.

Examination is supposed to be on the basis of the pre-filed testimony.  However, the Public Service Board is quasi-judicial, not a court of law, so there is some leeway.  Also, in most courts of law, while leading questions are sometimes permissible, loaded questions are not.  Loaded questions assume an answer, and the classic loaded question is described in Wikipedia as follows:

"Have you stopped beating your wife?" indirectly asserting that the subject has beaten her at some point.

Okay, cutting to the chase here.  Brice Simon's questions for Tranen seemed so inappropriate that I obtained a copy of the transcript for that day so that I could quote the exchange directly. The transcript is a public record, but it is not on the Public Service Board website.

See what you think of these questions.

I Know and You Don't--So Hah-Hah!

Context: Discussion of Vermont Yankee's role in diversifying the fuel supply mix in this area, an area which has limited natural gas pipelines.

(Questions by Brice  Simon, NEC lawyer; answers by Jeffrey Tranen, Entergy Witness; Objection by Robert Juman, Entergy Lawyer; Comment by James Volz, Chairman of the Public Service Board)

Illustration from
Renewable Energy Vermont

Q. Just to follow up on that one, isn't locally produced hydro power one type of fuel that can step in to meet that need rather than Vermont Yankee?

A. Local hydro is already factored into the dispatch.

Q. What I'm asking is increased local hydro over time could come in to meet that need, correct?

A. I question whether there's enough increased local hydro of the magnitude of a Vermont Yankee power plant, but in general any other source of power than gas which is economic -- more economic than gas to operate in the dispatch would reduce the amount of gas that's required during the operating day.

Q. Are you aware of how much untapped hydro resources there remain in the State of Vermont?

A. I don't have specific numbers, but when I was actively involved in management with regard to New England it was my understanding that there was very little economic new hydro in New England to be developed.

Q. And when was that?

A. A decade ago.

Q. A decade ago. So you're not aware of all of the wonderful improvements that Vermont hydro developers are seeing that are increasing the available economic hydro in the state, are you?

A. I am not aware of the -- to what extent there could be new hydro that would be economic to develop in Vermont.

Q. Are you aware of the recent developments in run-of-the-river hydrologic turbines?

MR. JUMAN: Objection. What developments are you referring to?

MR. SIMON: I'm asking if the witness is aware of the developments that I'm aware of that I'm not going to tell about.

MR. JUMAN: Then I object to that question. You're asking him about something you're not sharing with him.

MR. SIMON: I don't have to share it with him.

MR. JUMAN: You're asking him to read your mind.

MR. SIMON: No. I'm asking his state of knowledge. I don't have to tell him.

CHAIRMAN VOLZ: I think it's fair to ask him if he's -- we are -- what developments in hydro technology is he aware of.

MR. SIMON: I'll rephrase the question happily.

BY MR. SIMON: Q. What, if any, developments in the area of run-of-the-river hydrologic turbines are you aware of?

A. I am not aware of any hydroelectric technology developments that would make new hydro development economic in competing with gas fired generation to any great extent.

Q. Thank you. ..

My Conclusion

A fishy fish from Wikipedia

Mr Simon did not even attempt to justify his implied assertion that recent improvements had greatly expanded hydro power availability in Vermont.  He didn't enter anything about these new improvements into the pre-filed testimony. (All the NEC pre-filed testimony is about fish and cooling towers.) Instead, Simon resorted to loaded questions and "I know but I'm not telling." With this, he tried to convince the Public Service Board that there is lots of new hydro available to Vermont.

Simon seems to be claiming that there is new hydro available, on the same scale as Vermont Yankee power, but as small run-of-the-river plants, using an unreferenced new technology.  And he doesn't have to tell anything more about it.

Hopefully, the Board is smart enough to see through this type of questioning.

Hydro Power in Vermont: The Expert's View

A few days ago, I posted about some controversial renewable energy projects in Vermont.   I didn't mention hydro projects.  Basically, I don't think in-state hydro is going to expand very much in Vermont.  Still, hydroelectric power is pretty important in New England, so I need to discuss it.

Here's my Vermont-centric description of the Future Of Hydro.

In-State Hydro Right Now

 Historically, Vermont receives about 10-12% of its power from in-state hydro. I show two charts that show this percentage.  One is about two years old, showing 11% in-state hydro in Vermont.

Vermont Electric Supply
From 2010 PSB Sustainability Presentation 

One is more recent, showing 12% in-state hydro for Green Mountain Power, which supplies over 70% of the electricity in this state.

From current Green Mountain Power web page on Fuel Mix.

Green Mountain Power (GMP) website's hydro page describes Vermont's long history of hydro power. GMP itself has a fleet of 32 hydro stations, many of which include recreation areas. There are about 80 active hydro sites in Vermont.

Views on New Hydro in Vermont's Future

I don't expect in-state hydro to expand very much in the future.

VPIRG and the Coalition for Energy Solutions: In 2009, VPIRG issued a report on Repowering Vermont, and the Coalition for Energy Solutions reviewed this in their own report Vermont Electric Power in Transition in early 2010. On hydro, the two reports pretty much agree.  The VPIRG report expects only 15 MW growth of in-state hydro. The Coalition report is not sure that even that amount of hydro expansion is feasible: When thinking about building many small dams, the effects on tourism should be considered. In general, small free-flowing streams are part of the Vermont landscape, and a great tourist draw...(Full disclosure: I am one of the authors of the Coalition report.)

Renewable Energy Vermont (REV) is upbeat about hydro, but they admit that By and large all existing dam sites in Vermont have already been developed, with no new projects commissioned since 1993. Environmental concerns, a burdensome licensing process and difficult economics have been primarily responsible for the lack of new dams coming on line.  Despite this, REV is hopeful about small, community-scale, run-of-the-river hydro.

Hydropower Illustration
From REV

In August 2010, the Burlington Free Press ran an article Hydroelectric dams resurgent in Vermont. It isn't much of a resurgence, though. This article is really about refurbishing: the two dams described as coming on-line soon are on the sites of existing dams, and together the dams would generate only 3 MW of power.

The same article says that  A 2008 report assembled by the Agency of Natural Resources published estimates in the 50 MW range, which it termed “broad-brush assessments.” (The report) also noted that Vermont’s stewardship of its water resources probably would supercede the licensing of any new hydro dams.

A Department of Public Service (DPS)  presentation in 2008 includes several projections of how much new hydro is available in Vermont.  The numbers range from 25 MW to 322 MW. The DPS projection says that 25 MW can be built.  The high projection is from the Department of Energy: this estimate stands alone with so big a number, and seems to be based on the idea that every river, stream and brook in Vermont would have a hydro plant.

In Conclusion: Very Little New Hydro For Vermont

 I think that existing dams in Vermont will be refurbished and upgraded, with some increase in power supply.  Estimates of 15 to 25 MW seem reasonable to me.  As a whole, I think the state of Vermont will follow the guidance of the Agency of Natural Resources report:

Vermont’s stewardship of its water resources probably would supercede the licensing of any new hydro dams.

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

Hydro Outside of Vermont

As far as I can tell, while existing dam sites are being refurbished, the national trend is not in favor of more hydro projects. In the United States, hydro seems as likely to be dismantled as to be built. A year ago, for example, the Hydro Review website ran an article by Elizabeth Ingram: Exploring the Reasons behind Dam Removal.  The dams that were removed were located in the western United States.  Nearer to home,  the Edwards Dam was removed in Maine, in 1999, on the basis that it interfered with fish migration.

Low-head hydro that does not require a dam is much discussed. However,  I find few examples of such systems being built, perhaps because the economics are unfavorable.  Refurbishing an existing dam site is the most common way of adding hydro capacity at this time. If I am wrong about this, I hope my readers will correct me.

Hongping Hydro Station, China

Small hydro is being greatly expanded in China.

Further Reading:

To read about the biggest Vermont in-state hydro sites, I recommend Bob Hargraves post on the Energy Safari visit to Comerford Dam.

The five hydro plants on the Connecticut River are due for relicensing, and hearings will begin soon.  However, these plants are not counted as in-state hydro for Vermont. The Connecticut River is the border between Vermont and New Hampshire, but the state of Vermont begins at our shoreline, not in the middle of the river.  So New Hampshire has the hydro plants as well as responsibility for the bridges.

152nd Carnival of Nuclear Bloggers up at Hiroshima Syndrome

Leslie Corrice has just posted the 152nd Carnival of Nuclear Energy at the Hiroshima Syndrome blog.

Why is his blog called the Hiroshima Syndrome?  Here's the explanation: The Hiroshima Syndrome is the psychological distress which may be defined as the mortal fear of nuclear energy...

Corrice then lists the three misconceptions that are the basis of this fear.  Actually, I suggest you read his essay on the subject.

And now, I have managed to get off my own subject: the 152nd Carnival itself.

It's a great Carnival.  Here's the note that Corrice sent to those of us who contributed to the Carnival.


The Carnival

This week, we are proud to have a submittal from Massachusetts Institute of Technology concerning the movie Pandora’s Promise. Other blog topics include – using risk vs. benefit as a framework for analyzing nuclear opinions, the nuclear waste storage program in the Netherlands, a former NRC chairman says he is now antinuclear, how smart-grid ads can be demeaning to women, hypocritical environmentalists, and the resurrection of FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) in the Japanese press.

Nuclear Makes a Lot of Electricity. Controversial Renewables Make Very Little.

Where Does Electricity Come From? 

Nuclear:

Vermont Yankee went back on-line after refueling.  The outage lasted 26 days and included replacing a pump motor and transformer, as well as other maintenance.

Power produced: Vermont Yankee is 620 MW and operates over 90% of the time.   At a 90% capacity factor (actually it is higher) this would be about 560 MWyears of energy. (620 MW multiplied by 0.9 capacity factor)

Wind:

Opponents of big wind are pretty much stymied by the permitting process in Vermont.  The Public Service Board and the Siting Commission do not have to pay any attention to local planning.

However, two enterprising Vermont senators from the town of Windham are trying to get around the fact that the towns can be ignored in wind siting decisions. The town plan for Windham bans industrial wind, and these senators have sponsored a bill in the legislature which says that wind turbines cannot be built in the town of Windham.

In my opinion, there is no chance that this bill will pass. Still,  the senators will be able to tell their constituents: "I sure tried to stop big wind around here."

Power produced: The controversial Kingdom Community Wind (Lowell Mountain) project is 21 turbines, totaling 63 MW and can be expected to operate (capacity factor) less than 30% of the time.  Lowell is the largest wind installation in Vermont and can be expected to produce less than 21 MWyears of energy. (63 MW multiplied by 0.3 capacity factor)

Biomass:

There's a biomass plant being planned for Springfield, Vermont. It is running into a fair amount of opposition.  The VPR article by Susan Keese is headlined:  Sustainability of Springfield Biomass Plant in Question.  Meanwhile, Susan Smallheer reported in the Rutland Herald that the state is critical of wood-fired project's forestry plan.

A leading state forester, Steven Sinclair, recommended that the harvest plan should include that about third of the slash be left on the land for the health of the forest.  His office also removed the word "renewable" from their website when describing wood-fired projects.  For wood-fired projects, Sinclair said that “The science on both renewableness and carbon-neutrality is in question.”

Power produced: The Springfield biomass plant would be 35 MW.  Biomass plants capacity factors are variable, but on the average they have lower capacity factors than coal.  A recent National Renewable Energy Laboratory chart shows biomass with an average capacity factor of 70%. Therefore, the Springfield plant could  be expected to produce about 25 MWyears of energy. (35 MW multiplied by 0.7 capacity factor)

Solar:

Rutland Vermont is going to be a solar city.  Green Mountain power plans to "give Rutland the highest solar capacity per capita of any city in New England."  This quote is from the April 9, Green Mountain Power announcement of a Request for Proposals for a solar installation in Rutland.

Montpelier is also planning to install solar energy: Gayle Hanson of the Rutland Herald wrote about this in Capital City eyes going solar. In that article, the chairman of Montpelier's energy committee was quoted as follows: “The city gets a predictable future energy cost, and the bill for the city will be well below the cost from the utilities, so the more we have the more we save.”

Electricity from solar tends to be expensive electricity, but with net-metering (the power company buys electricity from solar arrays at a high price, but sells back-up electricity to the array owner at a lower price), a solar installation can save money for its owner.  This news release from All Earth Renewables describes these zero-cost solar programs.

Power Produced: Rutland will start with a 150 KW solar farm. Montpelier is looking at 150 to 500 KW solar arrays.   Capacity factor for sun in this area is about 18%, that is, average of 4.3 equivalent  sun hours per day.  Energy produced for the 150 KW installations would around 0.027 MWyears. (0.15MW multiplied by 0.18 capacity factor)

Alternative Energy Siting in Vermont: The Hearing

The Siting Commission

When the drumbeat of opposition to the industrial wind projects grew loud enough in the fall of 2012, Governor Shumlin created the Governor's Energy Generation Siting Policy Commission by executive order on October 2, 2012.   The first sentence of the executive order is that:

Whereas, as set forth in the 2011 Comprehensive Energy Plan and statute, Vermont has recognized the need to increase its energy independence and resilience through the greater use of renewable energy in all sectors; 

As many Vermonters see it, this body is supposed to deflect heat from the Public Service Board, which was siting industrial wind projects and riding roughshod over Vermont town land-use planning in order to do so.  This new Siting Commission is also allowed to ride roughshod over the town plans, but somehow, we are supposed to like it better.  As I noted in a recent post, the Vermont Senate considered a bill requiring stronger environmental review of energy projects, but only passed a gutted bill.

At any rate, the new Commission is holding some public hearings, and I went to one last night.  It was an interactive TV hearing, with people attending from all over Vermont. A large crowd was present in the Lyndonville TV studio. Lyndonville is in the Northeast Kingdom (NEK) of Vermont, where the wind projects are being built, despite much local opposition.

Spillway at Hydro Quebec

Most speakers were against the projects, and they were angry because they realized they are powerless to do anything about the projects. The Siting Commission also doesn't have to pay attention to the town or regional plans.  Other speakers asked why Vermont has to make all its own energy, when after all, it doesn't grow all its own food or make all its own clothes.

Guy Page of VTEP (Vermont Energy Partnership) spoke. He referenced his recent report that Vermont already gets over 50% of its electricity from sources it considers renewable.  Luckily, the Vermont legislature passed a law saying that power from Hydro Quebec is renewable.  That sure helped our renewable percentages around here!

Note: I recommend a blog post today by Howard Shaffer about renewable energy in Vermont. Alternative energy in Vermont – Chickens coming home to roost  at ANS Nuclear Cafe includes an excellent history of energy controversies in Vermont and a root cause analysis of energy opposition.

I also spoke at the Siting Commission meeting, and my statement is below.

Energy Density and Renewables: My Statement

It is relatively easy to think of people who are opposed to renewable energy projects as NIMBYs, and there may be some of that included in their opposition.  However, renewable energy sources have lower energy density than traditional sources (such as fossil fuels and nuclear power). Therefore, renewable projects often require significant use of land.

The book Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air, written by the carbon-advisor to the British Government, looks at the land use requirements for Britain if it attempted to obtain all its energy through renewables.  Similarly, the recent report by the Wilderness Society looks at land-use implications if the Northeast attempts to obtain most of its energy through renewables: Cumulative Landscape Impacts of Renewable Energy Alternatives for Northern New England   

If you look at these books and reports, you will see that there are extensive land-use implications to the use of renewables.  Towns could be trampled by renewable projects if such projects are considered more important than their own land-use planning processes.  I urge you to abide by the planning processes of the towns, and not override them.

A view in the Northeast Kingdom

The Oversold Smart Grid: Dismissing the Work of Women

Comes the Smart Grid

On Friday, most of the members of the Coalition for Energy Solutions attended a Jones Seminar at the Thayer School of Engineering at Dartmouth.  The topic was Harnessing Distributed Flexible Resources for Sustainable Electric Energy Systems and the speaker was Dr. Johanna Matheiu of the ETH Power Systems Laboratory in Zurich.

Dr. Matheiu was a clear and well-organized speaker.  Most of her talk was about methods of damping out short term fluctuations in the grid due to intermittent power providers.  The fluctuations she was concerned about were short-term: changes in wind speed, clouds over the sun.  When asked about long-term issues (the wind blows more at night when the demand for power is low anyway), she made some suggestions such as pumped storage.  Among other things, she suggested running clothes dryers late at night.

I don't blame her for this suggestion.  It is what everyone suggests.  For example, my local Green Mountain Power ad for their upcoming smart grid suggests that washing machines be run at three in the morning.  It's right there in the commercial.



Comes the Revolution?

Three in the morning?  Really?

I have been married for over forty years, and we raised two children.  I have run many loads of laundry in my time.  I know something about laundry.  Laundry doesn't "do itself" at three in the morning.  If laundry is running at three in the morning, someone is running it.

Doing laundry requires human intervention:

• If wet clothes sit around in the washing machine for a long time before being transferred to the dryer, the clothes are likely to grow some serious wrinkles.  
• When the dryer finishes, it signals (buzzes) so you can retrieve the clothes and hang them up quickly.  This is important, unless you don't mind looking as if you slept in your clothes.  

from Wikipedia

Every dryer I have owned for the past twenty years had a "cool-down" part of the cycle to prevent wrinkles, plus an end-of-cycle buzzer.  The dryers usually also have some kind of wrinkle-saver feature: the dryer keeps tossing the clothes about and buzzing yet again, so if you don't catch the first end-of-cycle signal, you will still have clothes that aren't wrinkled.  These are pretty important features for most women.  I remember the old days before permanent press fabrics and dryer-cycles.  It was all about ironing.  I still do some ironing on occasion, but not nearly as much as I did when I was first married.

In my opinion, this business of dryers running in the wee hours of the morning is simply insulting to the work that (mostly women) do in order to keep their households in clean clothes, sheets and towels. The assumption seems to be that such human work is not necessary.  The washing machine will run itself.

Unless, perhaps, comes-the-smart-grid-revolution, fabrics will also be quite different, quite high-tech, and  these fabrics will be able to sit around in washing machines and dryers for hours without getting wrinkled.  (I'm not holding my breath.)  Also, these amazing new fabrics (if they are planned for the smart grid) are never mentioned in the ads.

Midnight and Laundry

First of all, I want to say that I try to spare the grid.  For example, it is quite painless to start the dishwasher around ten at night instead of starting it right after dinner.  I also avoid doing laundry at truly prime-time.  I would welcome some level of time-of-day pricing, so more people would avoid stressing the grid.

But still it puzzles me: why all this emphasis on laundry-at-midnight?

I finally figured it out. Laundry at midnight is pretty much the only activity that seems to be available for time-of-day shifting.

Midnight and Real People

 It would be over-the-top to suggest that people cook meals at three a.m., go to baseball night games that start at three a.m. and so forth.  People won't do this. Some parts of our social structure need to work all night (hospitals, police stations, freeway gas stations, some industrial processes). These already operate all night.  Shifting other processes to midnight doesn't usually work out well.

For example, when my husband worked for a start-up digital mapping company, they decided to add a midnight shift of digitizers (map-makers).  Unfortunately, after a few months, they realized that the quality of the maps produced on the graveyard shift was much worse than maps from other shifts. The graveyard shift maps often required expensive reworking. It turned out to be more cost-effective to add workstations and workers in daylight hours.  I think other companies have made similar discoveries, over time.

In other words, humans are daylight creatures, not nocturnal.  When busily over-selling the smart grid, the sellers run right up against that fact. Somehow, they think midnight laundry is the solution.

Midnight laundry is not the solution.  Suggesting that clothes should be washed at three a.m. is insulting to the work of running a household.  Suggesting that clothes wash themselves is equally insulting.

Almost as important, this suggestion is an insulting oversimplification of the challenges of running a stable grid.

Note: I mentioned Dr. Mathieu's comments about the dryer to show how pervasive the "midnight laundry" idea seems to be.  Dr. Mathieu herself is doing research about the smart grid, not overselling it.  Green Mountain Power, on the other hand, is over-selling it.

-------

The Carnival of Nuclear Energy #151 is at Next Big Future today.  It has relatively few links, and they are all significant. The economics of small modular reactors, Arnie Gundersen's less-than-amazing career in the nuclear industry, future prices of natural gas, planting apple trees and building nuclear plants to benefit future generations, a moving memorial to Ted Rockwell, and carbon-counting in Canada. Well worth a visit!

Environmental Review of Vermont Wind: A Gutted Bill Moves from Senate to House

Turbine 9, Lowell Mountain
From Ver Monts albums

Environmental Oversight for Wind: In the Senate

Industrial wind projects in Vermont do not have to undergo Act 250 environmental review. (Since the 1970s, Act 250 has been Vermont's main land use planning act.) A recent bill in the Senate would have required Act 250 review for energy projects.  It had strong bi-partisan support in the Senate.

The bill also led a wind developer, Jeff Wolfe, to publicly threaten the (liberal Democrat) President Pro Tem of the Senate, John Campbell, as follows: if you support this bill, not only does ...(my) support end, but I will help recruit and support opposition to you in the next election, and will put my money where my mouth is.

In my opinion, Wolfe's public statement was sure to backfire, especially since Campbell had already announced his support of the Act 250 review bill.  What did Wolfe expect Campbell to do: apologize for offending Wolfe, get down on his knees and beg forgiveness, and promise to change his vote immediately?  I don't think that was very likely to happen.

As Campbell said: he “has publicly threatened me and tried to intimidate me to vote one way, and I think it would send a bad message” were he to change his vote. 

I blogged about this incident in Blowing in the Wind: Threats and Reactions.

The next step was exactly what you might expect in Vermont: the Senate took the "Act 250 part" out of the bill, made it a "study" bill and passed it by a narrow vote (16-14). Then the Zuckerman amendment was added. I have no idea why the initial vote was so close, because the bill had already been gutted.  However, a vote against (the version before the Zuckerman amendment) was considered a vote against big wind.  Then, after the Zuckerman amendment, everybody voted for the bill.

Yes, it gets really confusing.  Here's the Roll Call link to the bill, before the Zuckerman amendment.  It includes links to the bill itself.

On to the House

Representative Tony Klein

At any rate, the bill passed the Vermont Senate.  Its first stop in the Vermont House will be the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee, chaired by Tony Klein.  Klein is a dedicated foe of Vermont Yankee and friend of wind.

Andrew Stein of Vermont Digger reports on what will happen in that committee: S.30, energy siting bill, to get limited airing in House Natural Resources.

Klein doesn't want to spend too much time on this bill.  As quoted by Stein,  Klein stated: “We will be focusing in on what it is that’s going to be studied and what the tone is going to be...it seems to be implying that renewables are bad, and I would rather change it to start with the premise that renewables are good.”

That means Klein’s committee will take limited testimony.

“It’s not going to be an open door policy because it’s a study and there are certain things that are being asked to be studied,” he said. “I don’t need to hear from neighbors.” 

Klein is already hearing from many of the "neighbors" in the comment section of the Digger article.  I encourage you to read the comments.

A Broader View

Meanwhile, renewable energy in New England...as they say about relationships in Facebook: "It's complicated."  Let's start with the fact that the states can't agree on what energy is renewable. Is big hydro a renewable? Is biomass?  A recent AP article by Stephen Singer New England Renewable Energy Hard Sell in Region  includes this quote:

....the groundbreaking (interstate) deal is snared in a patchwork of rules, state laws and disagreements over how even to define alternative energy.
"I don't think we know how to do it," was the blunt assessment of Christopher Recchia, commissioner of Vermont's Public Service Department.

So there's the view from outside the Golden Dome (State House).  We don't know how to implement renewable energy in the region.

Perhaps this statement can be taken as a suggestion that everybody "listen to the neighbors."  Listening is usually a good idea.