Commissioner of the Department of Public Service Elizabeth Miller. VTD/Josh Larkin
With the state’s final Comprehensive Energy Plan in its last phase, industry groups are making a final push for cheap, reliable energy.
In addition to submitting comments to the Department of Public Service, the Associated Industries of Vermont, the Vermont Energy Partnership and other business organizations held a press conference last week to get their point across.
Their main grievance: The plan focuses on climate change, renewable energy, and efficiency to such an extent that they have become goals in and of themselves.
“Our concern is with any framework for legislation or rules that will complicate things for the economy that will make energy more expensive, less reliable or otherwise raise obstacles to commerce,” said William Driscoll, vice president of Associated Industries of Vermont.
The Associated Industries of Vermont (AIV) lobbies on behalf of industry and businesses in the state. Read the AIV’s commentsAIV comments Comprehensive Energy Plan.
The Comprehensive Energy Plan is in its draft phase. The Department of Public Service has a statutory mandate to create a plan, but the state has not published one in more than 10 years. The current draft plan looks at current energy challenges and use and makes recommendations to allow the state to reach a goal of obtaining 90 percent of the state’s total energy needs from renewable sources by 2050.
Driscoll said the plan puts a heavy focus on environmental impacts associated with energy production. The groups claim Vermont already has a clean energy portfolio, and meeting the plan’s ambitious goals would create a hardship for business by increasing costs they pay for energy.
About 50 percent of Vermont’s electricity comes from renewable resources currently, according to a study by the Clean Energy States Alliance. This comes primarily from Hydro-Quebéc and the New York Power Authority. In-state renewable electricity generation represents about 20 percent of Vermont’s electricity use. Nearly one half of Vermont’s electricity comes from out-of-state sources.
Driscoll and other business advocates worry the amount of money Vermont plans to spend on renewable energy and efficiency measures will make it more difficult for already struggling businesses as they will inevitably bear the brunt of the financial burden through electricity rates. Vermont already imposes an energy efficiency charge that funds efficiency measures, and the state earned a first place ranking for electric utility-sponsored efficiency programs this year. Increasing the amount of energy the state will get from renewables and increasing efficiency measures will costs hundreds of millions of dollars. This totaled nearly $40 million last year.
According to a study by the Public Service Board released in October, shifting to 75 percent of the state’s electricity from renewable sources would cost somewhere between $135 million and $294 million more than the current scenario over a 30-year period time period.
According to the comprehensive plan, the total bill impacts for renewable resources amount to $292 million over 20 years: less than 0.2 cents per kilowatt-hour. Comments submitted to the Department of Public Service from the Vermont Energy Partnership claim the overall cost needs clarification because “it is difficult for a layman to assess the ‘bottom line.’”
The partnership also criticizes the plan for ignoring the possibility of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station continuing offering reliable, cheap energy. The nuclear facility’s future is unclear since its future operation depends on a pending federal court case. The plan does not include any pending projects before the Public Service Board either.
Asa Hopkins, director of energy policy and planning for the Department of Public Service, said the department’s statutory mandate to create the plan is to keep costs low. He said the idea of the plan is to create a model that will provide insights for policy makers. Therefore it is more a matter of modeling potential scenarios than a firm mandate. Hopkins said the plan focuses on energy efficiency because this will save money in the long run.
“One main takeaway is that an efficiency-first perspective pays off big time,” Hopkins said.
According to a model in the plan, every $1 million spent on efficiency is projected to produce $0.54 million in gross domestic product, and $0.86 million in wage income.
One idea reflected in the plan, Hopkins said, is the plan to bring electricity bills down with efficiency, which will provide savings that can go toward investing in cleaner energy.
Another focus of the plan is to shift toward more local renewable energy sources, which will allow for money spent on energy to remain within the state and also benefit the Vermont economy by creating jobs in the state to maintain and build in-state renewables.
As for the estimate costs in the comprehensive energy plan and recent Public Service Board study, the basic idea is to use them within the model to compare one approach to another. The basic idea of the plan, Hopkins said, is to analyze a number of different inputs and scenarios that will give policy makers a handle on what matters.
While industry groups held a press conference to voice their concerns over the plan, environmental groups applauded its ambitious goals.
Ben Walsh, a clean energy advocate with the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, said, “the bottom line for us is: this is the responsible thing to do.”
Walsh said the idea of 90 percent renewables by 2050 is a laudable goal, and the state should be getting there even faster. VPIRG’s comments focused on building more local energy projects in state.
Johanna Miller, energy program director for the Vermont Natural Resources Council, called the plan a “job creator.”
She said there is a false premise that the environment and the economy are at odds when it comes to energy policy and that cleaner energy will create jobs and help the environment.
“We can’t continue on with old outdated models of powering our lives,” Miller said.
She said it is refreshing to have a comprehensive energy plan that recognizes the importance of shifting to cleaner sources of energy. Miller said she understands that developers are reticence to make investments in thinks like efficiency and renewable energy sources because they are expensive up front, but investing in these things will save money in the long run.
Miller said VNRC’s concerns with the goal were that it lacked enough specificity as to how the state would reach its goals.
Correction: This article originally cited part of the Comprehensive Energy Plan that states if 25 percent of all American energy were produced from renewable sources by 2025, the country would see 5 million new “green” jobs. This information is from a study by the Rand Corporation and the University of Tennessee that was later rescinded, according to Sarah Hofmann deputy commissioner of the Department of Public Service. The reference will be removed from the final version of the plan, Hofmann said.
CLARIFICATION: This story cites a study by the Public Service Board released in October, that states shifting to 75 percent of the state’s electricity from renewable sources would cost somewhere between $135 million and $294 million more than the current scenario over a 30-year period time period. These numbers were based on one illustrative scenario. Under two model scenarios the Public Service Board recommended, costs could rise 6 to 9 percent, resulting in costs of $311 million and $435 respectively.
Permalink |
“The partnership also criticizes the plan for ignoring the possibility of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station continuing offering reliable, cheap energy.”
Power from VY, after March of 2012, was never going to be cheap. VEP has continually tried to convince Vermonters that the price being paid today for power from VY will be tomorrow’s price and that’s just not true.
The utilities know this, because they were able to find less expensive power, over the long-term, from other sources.
The other remarkable aspect of this position ignores the fact that nuclear power, in general, is the most highly subsidized power we have. In addition to the subsidized costs, the cost of decommissioning this plant will, in all likelihood, exceed a billion dollars.
If VEP and AIV choose to look at just the rate being paid for VY power than they, too, should say no. If they would look at all of the hidden costs of VY power then, like most Vermonters, they would want nothing to do with VY power.
Then again if the largest member of VEP happens to be Entergy, then this group might see things differently.
Permalink |
“Their main grievance: The plan focuses on climate change, renewable energy, and efficiency to such an extent that they have become goals in and of themselves.”
That’s a grievance? Really? Tell that to your grandkids when you’re on the way out on your death bed.
Sounds to me like I might be able to say “Hey kids, at least we finally got around to starting what you’re perfecting. Love ya.”
Permalink |
Schneider’s point is well taken.
The idea that current economic considerations trump the need to have a livable planet is absurd.
Johanna Miller is right when she says that there is a false premise that the environment and the economy are at odds when it comes to energy policy and that cleaner energy will create jobs and help the environment.
Environmental protection and clean, renewable energy are not bad for business. They may be bad for “business as usual”. To say otherwise is extremely short-sighted.
Permalink |
With all the money and addiction to our present comfort level involved, it is very difficult to discern the truth.
Permalink |
Comments from Guy to Rama, Bob and Alan -
Rama, one of the points I make in our critique of Com. Miller’s plan is that in real terms we will be going backwards, fast, on greenhouse gas emissions. This plan talks the talk but doesn’t walk the walk, and what I mean by that is this: if you close the virtually zero-carbon source of a third of Vermont’s power, and then replace it with natural gas (the short-term plan “until we get enough renewables” in real-time, whenever that is), you (as a state) are going backwards, fast. The climate doesn’t care about our white papers or good intentions, it cares about carbon output. You are either going forward, or backward. This plan takes us backward. I continue to be amazed that no-one in the environmental community seems to be making this an issue. As someone who grew up in Burlington in the Moran Plant era and who hiked acid-rain barren Green Mountain ridgelines, and thought “this really sucks”, it bothers me and I am not going to just stand by and say “oh all right” to the negative environmental impacts of this plan.
As far as price is concerned – yep, we’re going backward there, too. Alan, I spent a long time looking at that .02 kilowatt figure, at its basis and reasoning, and I’m sorry but I just can’t make that work with any confidence. It looks like a number that is tossed out there in the general report, citing a study that, upon close examination, does not appear to be either clear or well-supported. If you can demonstrate otherwise, I’m all ears. According to my rough arithmetic, if adding a mere 100 MW at 24 cents adds $175 million to ratepayer costs, that’s about two-thirds of that $292 million, right there. And we haven’t even factored in the cost of the other 92% of so of the power the plan projects we need, nor the cost of efficiency.
Bob, I use what we’re paying VY as a starting point, because that is, well, what we are paying VY. It’s a real-time number. Having said that, even if four cents “skyrockets” all the way up to, say, six cents – that awful 50% increase – in terms of purchase cost isn’t that still a pretty good deal, esp. when the jobs, revenue etc. is factored into the total package. As far as subsidy comparisons go – well, I am no scholar in the field, but it seems to me that subsidizing 24-30 cent power compared with not subsidizing 4-6 cent power is a pretty easy decision from the ratepayer pov.
Anyway guys, good talking with you, and see you around.
Permalink |
Cheap and reliable? How can they say that with a straight face? At least they’ve given up on the “safe and clean” part. Onward Vermont!!!
Permalink |
Instead of the politically-motivated Public Service Board or the Department of Public Service which has political appointees, doing or supervising the calculations, it is best to select a panel of qualified, independent energy system specialists to do or to supervise the calculations of various alternatives.
All assumptions should be stated and approved by the panel.
Glasnost should prevail.
This procedure will take most of the distrust out of energy policy issues.
Permalink |
Not one mention of conservation. All about cheap. Let us waste together. Run the lights all night. Don’t ask me to think, I just cannot look back. Hey, I might turn into a pillar of snot.
Permalink |
Willem – the PSB members are appointed by the governor, but cannot be removed, thus making them a quasi-judicial board; not a political board.
I believe that the DPS under former Gov. Douglas could’ve been viewed as being politically motivated. Remember when this governor had an opportunity to buy five dams on the Ct. & Deerfield Rivers for next to nothing? These hydro dams would have more than replaced the power from VY, which was scheduled to close in just a few short years. That governor passed up this extraordinary good deal and allowed
TransCanada to buy them. Don’t try to convince anyone that this wasn’t political.
Of course the agencies are political by their nature. The current DPS is in line with the wishes of its boss, just like the last DPS was in line with the wishes of its boss. So what?
Permalink |
Bob,
Decisions are made without serious analysis by independent energy systems analysts which will significantly increase the energy costs of Vermont households and the cost of goods and services produced with this higher cost energy.
It will lower the revenues and profits of businesses.
Households that already are on the margin, say about 30% of Vermont households, will suffer the most.
If subsidized wind energy with a levelized cost of 9 to 10 c/kWh (per GMP) is rolled in large blocks into the rate schedule it will have an effect.
The cost seen by the US economy (includes the Vermont economy) is defined as the economic cost without subsidies, which would be 13 to 15 c/kWh on New England ridge lines, PLUS the hidden (not quantified) cost of environmental damage.
Permalink |
“About 50 percent of Vermont’s electricity comes from renewable resources currently, according to a study by the Clean Energy States Alliance. This comes primarily from Hydro-Quebéc and the New York Power Authority.”
That’s only through the false magic of Vermont yesterday considering HQ to be an environmental disaster and politically unacceptable and today declaring it to be “renewable.” And that’s because the Shumlin Administration needed to come up with something “renewable” to replace VY power, fast.
It’s a pathetic con job. Either HQ power was always renewable, or it wasn’t and still isn’t.