Vermont Electric Co-op directors ask lawmakers to put a hold on new renewable energy mandates

Dave Hallquist, cheif executive officer of Vermont Electric Co-op. VTD/Taylor Dobbs

Dave Hallquist, cheif executive officer of Vermont Electric Co-op. VTD/Taylor Dobbs

The Vermont Electric Co-op board of directors is calling for a two-year moratorium on new renewable energy mandates from the state.

Seven co-op directors passed a resolution on Thursday demanding that the Vermont Legislature put any new legislation on hold that might require utilities to meet new renewable energy targets.

In a plan published this year, the Department of Public Service set the bar high for renewable electric generation: 90 percent of Vermont’s power is to come from biomass, wind, hydro and solar by 2050.

David Hallquist, CEO of Vermont Electric Co-op, says his board is very concerned that the state has set objectives that may outstrip the utility industry’s ability to respond. The technology for storage of power from so-called intermittent sources of electricity such as wind and solar has yet to be developed. Hallquist says as more intermittent power is fed into the power grid, reliability could become an issue.

The board is also concerned about the cost of renewables for consumers. Rates for solar and wind are higher than those for base sources of power such as natural gas, nuclear and coal.

Right now there are no statutory requirements set for renewable thresholds. Hallquist says, however, that a renewable portfolio standard bill floated in 2012 could resurface this biennium.

“There’s good reason to see pressure there,” Hallquist said. “We would all like to see more green energy … it’s motherhood and apple pie. We should take the time to have a good dialog to talk about how we’re going to get to the goals.”

Rep. Tony Klein, chair of the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee, declined to comment.

The co-op has double the penetration of renewables as a percentage of its power portfolio in the state compared with other utilities, Hallquist says. Twenty percent of the electricity it delivers to customers comes from wind and other sources. With Hydro Quebec power, that percentage goes up to 45 percent. (Vermont is the only state in the region that has deemed the flooding of vast areas of the northern Quebec region as a renewable resource, Hallquist said.)

“We’re at 20 percent when you start to getting over 20 percent you see grid instability,” Hallquist said. “The goal of 80 percent to 90 percent is not physically possible with this technology. We need to look how we get there, and we really want to address the technological limitations in our way.”

Hallquist and the board say the state needs to form a panel of experts who can review the options for addressing grid reliability issues in a future where more renewables are built into the power mix.

Manufacturers and other commercial power users, for example, would need to develop power storage and generation capacity to circumvent equipment damage and failures from inconsistent intermittent sources of power.

Hallquist said any increase over 20 percent can impact reliability.

The Vermont Electric Co-op has tried to strike a balance between aggressively pursuing renewable power from Green Mountain Power’s Kingdom Community Wind and First Wind in Sheffield and offering competitive rates. VEC rates are about 17 cents a kilowatt hour; the state average is 16 cents, Hallquist said.

Chris Recchia, interim commissioner of the Department of Public Service, commended VEC for expanding renewables while keeping rates down, but he doesn’t think a moratorium is necessary. The state reviews the impact of rate increases from renewables on a case by case basis.

“We have been watching rates carefully all along,” Recchia said.

ISO New England, the regional distributor of power, can handle 24 percent intermittent power, according to Recchia. The state has a long way to go before it hits that threshold, he said.

“We are paying attention to the things the VEC board is concerned about,” Recchia said. “Financial impacts are a perfectly valid concern.”

The board resolution comes 18 months after members of the co-op gave overwhelming approval to a transmission line project that delivers power from Kingdom Community Wind in Lowell to Jay Peak Resort. The board supported the project unanimously, Hallquist said.

Since then, however, the board has been meeting with community members who oppose wind towers.

“We observed the wind issue splitting our community,” Hallquist said. “We asked ourselves, why are we doing this when it represents only 4 percent of our carbon footprint?”

Hallquist said the state is better off focusing its efforts on transportation and home heating efficiencies, which together make up 79 percent of Vermont’s energy use.

“I don’t like it that we’re splitting our communities fighting over crumbs of carbon use,” Hallquist said.

VEC serves 32,000 households in Northern Vermont.

The Vermont Electric Co-op board of directors’ resolution follows.

VERMONT ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.

RESOLUTION OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS

WHEREAS, it is unclear at this time whether the electric grid will be able to accommodate renewable generation projects in excess of 20% of the supply needs in Vermont without adverse effects, including voltage instability (which can cause significant damage to industrial equipment) and potential curtailments of lower cost base-load generation (as has been experienced in the Pacific Northwest and Texas);

WHEREAS, currently, VEC is approaching having 20% of its power portfolio being supplied by renewable resources, including First Wind’s Sheffield project, Kingdom Community Wind, and net metered and SPEED projects;

WHEREAS, no cost-effective storage solutions presently exist to enable larger penetrations of intermittent renewables, such as solar or wind projects;

WHEREAS, industrial-scale wind development has created an unhealthy division in communities that surround such projects, particularly since the current carbon footprint of electricity represents only 4% of the total Vermont carbon footprint; and

WHEREAS, a moratorium on wind projects, if not coupled with a moratorium on other renewable mandates, will limit renewable options for distribution utilities primarily to solar projects, which will certainly be more expensive, thus raising power costs for all members. For example, based on current technology and costs, if VEC were to meet the renewable goals set in the 2011 Vermont Comprehensive Energy Plan without industrial-scale wind, VEC projects that its members could see an increase in electric rates of approximately 90%.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, as follows:

The VEC Board of Directors recommends that the Vermont Legislature impose a moratorium for a period of two years effective on January 1, 2013, on further renewable power supply mandates or sooner if the grid instability, human health impacts, and cost issues have been addressed and a transition plan is in place that considers the cost and reliability impacts of moving to higher levels of renewable resources. VEC further recommends that a statewide panel be formed, representing all stakeholders – including utility customers – to create such a transition plan.

Anne Galloway

Comments

  1. “I don’t like it that we’re splitting our communities fighting over crumbs of carbon use.”

    This is a wise statement coming from inside the industry.

    The Free Press posted a video of the Lowell ridge with turbines spinning.

    http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/videonetwork/2049936309001/A-Visit-to-the-Kingdom-Community-Wind-Project

    It would be wonderful to see more objective documentation of the site(s) to provide Vermonters with a clear picture of what is going on up there, including what kind of wildlife is collecting on the ground underneath. Does GMP even have to report the total number of kills these turbines are making, or do they have a taking permit that covers all casualties?

    • Matt,

      Within a few months, we will have the FERC data of the Lowell energy production.

      Spreadsheet analysis of 5 years of Maine IWT ridge line energy production data shows the Maine capacity factors are not anywhere near the 0.32 touted by promoters and used for approvals by Maine authorities.

      In 2012, all summer there has been no or very little wind. This carried on throughout the fall and early winter.

      I live at a high elevation and my flag barely moves most of the day.

      GMP and others will be in for a surprise.

  2. Coleman Dunnar :

    Great video – reminds me of the blades in a food processor. In this case these blades are chewing up the environment.

  3. Kevin Jones :

    As a result of VEC’s statements this story and the VEC Board Resolution are both factually incorrect and mislead both readers and VEC customers. As I have noted previously, and a recent Public Service Board report confirms because of the Vermont legislature’s fundamentally flawed SPEED legislation, Vermont does not have a renewable mandate (it is a 20% voluntary goal) and because of the design of the goal (it promotes the sale of renewable energy credits out of state and the utilities are largely registering the resources in MA and CT renewable programs) VEC and other Vermont utilities are not purchasing these renewables for their customers power portfolio nor do these SPEED resources reduce Vermont utility customers greenhouse gas emissions they actually increase them (since they sell the RECs out of state and the resulting resources replacing the power are largely fossil fueled). The result of these utility SPEED purchases is both documented in PSB reports and utility filings with the PSB. As a Vermonter that has been a professional in the electric power industry for 25 years I am surprised by this misstatement of what VEC and others are doing for renewables for their customers given the shell game that they are playing with this renewable energy. Contrary to VEC’s claims here, implementing a renewable portfolio standard in Vermont would not in the near term result in significant new large scale wind projects in Vermont but it would require the utilities to stop selling the renewable energy from these existing projects into out of state renewable programs and instead retire the renewable energy credits for the benefit of Vermonters and the environment. The comments in this story and the resolution are an unsupportable attack on an RPS that is both factually incorrect and misleading to VEC customers and all Vermonters.

    The statement “WHEREAS, currently, VEC is approaching having 20% of its power portfolio being supplied by renewable resources, including First Wind’s Sheffield project, Kingdom Community Wind, and net metered and SPEED projects” is factually incorrect because by VEC’s own admission and consistent with the flawed SPEED program VEC is selling most (if not all) of the Sheffield, Kingdom Community Wind, and other SPEED projects to out of state customers which results in an increase in their Vermont customers carbon emissions. The only renewables mentioned here that are being consumed by VEC customers would be the very small net metered projects (at most a couple of MW’s) since the net metered RECs are not sold out of state. In regards to their SPEED resources you cannot be selling the renewable energy out of state and at the same time be keeping it for your own customers. Claiming to do so would be a false claim and in conflict with the Federal Trade Commissions guidelines.

    If the legislature replaced the current SPEED goal of 20% by 2017 with an RPS of 20% or less by 2017 there would not be the need for more large scale renewables in Vermont but the utilities would have to begin to stop selling the renewable energy credits out of state for the current wind and other SPEED projects. This would result in a net increase in renewables in the New England region and a real reduction in Vermont’s greenhouse gas emissions. VEC and other Vermont utilities should disclose to their customers the generator emissions as tracked by ISO-NE for their SPEED resources which would then demonstrate that these resources are not low carbon. Utility and other energy professionals outside of Vermont recognize that the SPEED program is a sham. Unfortunately VEC and other Vermont utilities have continually opposed fixing the flawed SPEED program by replacing it with an RPS and these comments are just another ploy to continue this flawed approach.

    • Kevin,

      Your comments are about bookkeeping, not about the physics.

      Many people, who are not energy systems analysts, make off-the-wall statements about energy systems that confuse legislators and the lay public, much to the advantage of RE vendors. They whisper into the ears of legislators, who mindlessly do their bidding, as part of “Constituent Service”.

      Why do I say mindlessly? Just look at the results of the programs they have cooked up thus far.

      Energy, as electromagnetic waves, moves on power lines at almost the speed of light, about 1,800 miles in 0.01 second.

      If Vermont ruins its ridge lines to produce energy, that energy is instantly spread all over New England. Vermont Yankee’s energy is also spread that way. It is all explained in the below article.

      The RECs are merely another RE subsidy. Other New England entities that need to reduce their CO2 emissions just buy the RECs instead; it is soooo much less expensive to buy RECs.

      Why should these entities ruin THEIR environment when Vermont is ruining its environment for them?

      There is a proposal to build 3,000 MW of IWTs in Ireland, but ALL the energy will go to the UK, i.e., ruin Ireland’s landscape for the benefit of the British, who don’t want to ruin THEIR landscape. It is all explained in the below article.

      http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/98061/irelands-wind-energy-export-plan
      http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/155681/co2-emissions-and-chevy-volt-vs-honda-civic-ex-l

      BTW David Hallquist IS an engineer. He DOES understand the issues. His above statements ARE correct.

  4. John Greenberg :

    It is worth noting that the “whereas” clauses in this document are quite misleading.

    “WHEREAS, it is unclear at this time whether the electric grid will be able to accommodate renewable generation projects in excess of 20% of the supply needs in Vermont without adverse effects…” addresses issues on the GRID as a whole, not those of any one utility.

    “WHEREAS, currently, VEC is approaching having 20% of its power portfolio being supplied by renewable resources…” is just the opposite. It addresses the power portfolio of one utility, not of the grid.

    ISO-NE, the regional grid operator, has indeed noted that problems COULD arise when penetration from intermittent power sources exceeds 20%, but the New England grid is nowhere near that number. VEC may be approaching 20%, but the grid is still mired in the single digits, and is not expected to approach 20% for many years (certainly longer than the proposed 2-year moratorium).

    • John,

      I agree with you, but the issue is not technical.

      With enough grid modifications, which will take decades to implement, at least 20% variable/intermittent wind energy, i.e., junk energy, can be accommodated to the grid, but the CO2 emissions reduction will not be anywhere near what is touted by the AWEA and other promoters, i.e., with enough money even pigs can be made to fly.

      Example: GMP will have to add, per ISO-NE requirement, an up to $10-million, dynamic-reactive system to prevent the NEK grid from being roiled by the variable energy of the Lowell Mountain IWTs.

      After making the IWT ridge line investments, ruining ridge lines in the process, and making the investments in the grid, and making the investments in quick-ramping OCGTs operating in inefficient part-load-ramping mode, the energy produced is 10 c/kWh, heavily-subsidized, per GMP; and 15 c/kWh, unsubsidized, per US-DOE.

      HIGH ENERGY COSTS ARE NOT GOOD FOR JOB CREATION

      It is all explained in this article.

      http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/89476/wind-energy-co2-emissions-are-overstated

  5. Kevin Jones :

    Willem

    I very much understand that my comments are about REC accounting ( or bookkeeping as you call it). Accurate REC accounting is central to a Renewable Portfolio Standard and ensuring that customers get the benefits of the renewables that they pay for. Calling for a hold on renewable mandates would keep the flawed SPEED program in place rather than replace it with an RPS like all of our neighboring states. Ending SPEED and going to an RPS would be all about accurate accounting of renewables and would not impact the physics of the system. The utilities would be required to retire the RECs from their current renewables which would increase renewable energy in the region and reduce Vermont’s carbon foot print. Transitioning from a 20% SPEED goal to a mandatory 20% RPS goal will not necessarily have any impact on the physics of the system but it would impact both economics and the environment as Vermont utilities like VEC stop selling their RECs into out of state RPS programs and use them to meet a real Vermont renewable standard. Explain to me your grand theory why transitioning to an RPS would threaten the operations of the Vermont Grid?

Comments

*

Comment policy Privacy policy
Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "Vermont Electric Co-op directors ask lawmakers to put a hold on new r..."