In the interview on Vermont Public Radio, “In Smart Grid Debate, Co-ops Pick Hard-Wire Over Wireless To Cut Cost,” the remarks by the president of Washington Electric Co-op, Avram Patt, in favor of wired smart meters were quite persuasive. He gave specific information and advantages. By contrast, the spokesman for CVPS gave no reasons at all for CVPS and GMP to select wireless smart meters over the wired smart meters Washington Electric Co-op has had in service for several years.

Sure, wireless provides a major advantage if you can avoid stringing wire, which is expensive. Wireless is a huge advantage for mobile systems. And for rotating systems.

But our houses are standing still. Each of our houses and businesses are already wired. No substantial infrastructure is needed for CVPS or GMP to choose a wired system because electric wires, phone wires and TV cables are already in place, and any of those existing wires can be used for the two-way communication, as described by the consultant to the Public Service Board on pages 26-32 of their report.

According to this report, the system called “power line communication” uses the already existing electric wires between the house and the company. The system requires no radio. Also according to this report, such public networks as landline telephone lines, Internet, satellite and cellular systems can be used for communicating the information from the meter. The report points out that “In fact, utilities that have deployed RF systems quite often use public networks for the small percent of customers that are difficult or too costly to reach using RF technology.”

Digital signals travel very nicely over the electric wires already connected to each and every house and business in Vermont. Whether the connection be along those electric wires or along telephone wires, fiber optic lines or cable already present for TV, wired smart meters provide far more secure communication that is much harder to intercept than the RF technology planned by CVPS and GMP. More megabits per second can be sent over wire than wirelessly. Communication is much less prone to transmission errors. Wired is far more energy efficient. Wired works as well over hilly terrain as over flat. Wired allows a similar range of services as wireless. Most of the wired communication schemes have no RF safety concerns. And Patt cited both technological and cost advantages.

The difference between wired communication and wireless is not what is measured by the meter or what is communicated back to the company. It is just a matter of how the digital signal from the meter is communicated: either through electric wire, telephone wire, optical fiber or cable, or as a radio signal. For a smart grid application where the houses are staying in one place, and a choice of wires is already in place, good reason need be provided for forcing wireless on Vermonters.

At a Senate hearing a CVPS vice president testified that only wireless met the requirements CVPS sent out for bid. But the vice president did not reveal what the requirements were that could not be met by wired smart meters. Nor did he say why these unstated requirements were essential for CVPS and GMP but were not essential for Washington Electric Co-operative.

A Jan. 14, 2011, New York Times article, “Calif. Agency Mulls ‘Opt Out’ or Wired Substitutes as Fallout Over Smart Meters Persists” states,“In separate interviews, California Public Utilities Commission members Nancy Ryan and Timothy Simon said they were open to looking at new policies that would either let ratepayers reject smart meter installation outright or pursue wired rather than wireless connections.” Similarly, Vermonters may wish the Public Service Board to require utilities to allow customers to choose a wire connected smart meter instead of the wireless. The Vermont Public Service Board may consider that the $10 per month additional fee the CVPS and GMP are demanding from customers who opt out of the wireless scheme is substantially inferior to providing customers with choice of communications schemes.

Integrating meter reading for electricity, gas and water with broadband communication for Internet, TV and phone, as is done in several European countries, could facilitate fiber to the home or another ultra high speed communication scheme. The Public Service Board may wish to consider that providing, instead, separate wireless communication schemes for each meter reading function and also separately providing broadband is costly, duplicative, inefficient and a waste of resources.

In view of the fact that wired smart meters are already installed here in Vermont by Vermont Electric Co-op and that two Vermont utilities chose wired smart meters over wireless, as well as the fact that a system with multiple types of communication schemes can be accommodated, an investigation is needed to understand what facts persuaded CVPS and GMP to attempt to force wireless on all customers. In the absence of sufficient reason I would urge the Vermont Public Service Board to reject the application for forced wireless smart meters and to instead encourage GMP and CVPS to include wired smart meters as an option. This especially in view of the fact that, like the Washington Electric Co-op, GMP and CVPS have many rural customers in hilly locations, and in view of the above list of advantages of wired communication, including the cost advantages cited by co-op President Avram Patt.

VTDigger

I am writing in response to Avram Patt’s Opinion piece titled, “Wind farms: Large, visible … and necessary” published by VTDigger on Jan. 31, 2012. While Mr. Patt made some interesting points, there are issues in his piece that must be addressed.

For example, he asserts that there is a one-to-one ratio between wind power generated and the reduction of power generated from other sources. There is no reliable data to support this assertion. Here in the New England grid with the inefficient ramping of natural gas plants wind may be actually increasing GHG emissions rather than reducing them. We don’t know.

The capacity numbers Patt presents for Sheffield are inaccurate. While the “nameplate” capacity of those turbines might be 2.5MW, the most optimistic estimates are that the turbines will produce around 30 percent of their theoretical potential. These are the numbers the developer provided the Public Service Board. Project supporters and press often overstate how much production we can actually expect from these destructive projects in their attempts to defend them.

Patt’s claim that “mountains are not being blasted apart” glosses over the truth. The mountains in Lowell are, in fact, being blasted apart. There GMP has blasted away at so much mountain they have created new 40-foot cliffs that previously weren’t there. Additionally, they have created miles of bulldozed roads and turbine pads in what once was untouched forestland, headwaters and wildlife habitat. This description is apt, and it is happening right here in Vermont, and is unlike anything happening at our ski resorts.

Patt suggests it is time to move because we have been discussing the issue for years. Years of planning unfortunately are not the same as experiencing the impacts firsthand. With two operating projects, three others approved or under construction, we are now just beginning to understand the full-scale impacts of these developments. Now is a good time to pause and take look at what is really happening.

I agree with Patt that the most valuable thing we can contribute to the fight against climate change is, in fact, our ridges. Our most valuable resource, though, is not the wind that blows across them, but the habitat they create. As climate change happens, plants and animals under stress will need refuges, places where they can go to survive. Unspoiled mountain ridges are the best refuge available, and that’s one thing that Vermont has that few other places do.

We must respond to climate change, but we should do it in the most effective ways. We can’t have both big wind and unspoiled ridgelines in Vermont. By developing our ridgelines to take advantage of a mediocre resource, we are destroying a premium resource.

Lastly, Patt is unnecessarily negative about the outlook of smaller community-scale renewable energy projects. Solar is undergoing a historic cost decline, and innovative energy storage technologies will be available in the next couple of years. Imagine how we will feel if we sacrifice our mountains now for technology that is outdated in a few short years.

We have two paths, the first is is doom and gloom and sacrifices our unspoiled mountains. The second saves the resource Vermont is uniquely positioned to contribute to the cause, and harnesses the power of our communities to overcome the challenges we all face. I’ll take the second, and keep the mountains.

VTDigger

Vermont has been discussing commercial-scale wind development for about 10 years. In 2005, Washington Electric Co-op announced our support of First Wind’s project in Sheffield and committed to purchasing a portion of the electricity.

We stuck our neck out on behalf of that project. We attended meetings and hearings in the Sheffield area, and wrote about it in our newsletter and elsewhere and discussed it at our member meetings. Members of WEC’s board of directors visited wind farms in other states and countries, talked to local people, and assessed for themselves what these projects looked like and how people felt about them. The majority of WEC members have supported our involvement, but we’ve also heard from some who don’t.

There has been a lot of misunderstanding and also misinformation about wind projects generally in Vermont. So I am writing to discuss not just the Sheffield project, but utility-scale wind development in general.

Let’s start by agreeing that wind towers are huge. In Vermont they must be located on certain ridgelines because that is where the wind resources are. There is no question that they are very visible and they change the landscape in their vicinity. They can be heard from some locations. Building a project is also a major construction event. It requires the clearing of some land and the building of narrow roads. As with any major construction, including a renewable-energy project, there is environmental impact.

With that said, here is what we also need to understand: By developing commercial-scale wind, we make a real difference for the planet. Intermittent sources like wind and solar cannot at this point supply all the power we need on the grid, but they can supply a whole lot more than we have now. Every kilowatt-hour generated by a wind tower is one that does not need to come from other sources. That is real progress, and wind can be major part of our future.

We can’t just do the small stuff. Vermonters are, in fact, generating their own power at their homes and businesses in increasing numbers, mostly with solar but also some wind. And small-scale commercial projects (2.2 megawatts or less) are being built around the state because of financial incentives created by our Legislature.

But we need to understand some equivalents: One wind turbine on a 400-foot tower at Sheffield has a capacity of 2.5 megawatts. There are 16 such turbines at Sheffield and that project will generate enough power for the equivalent of 16,000 homes. (The Lowell Mountain project now under construction is somewhat larger.) To generate as much power as just one of those large turbines, we would need to put up well over a thousand home-scale turbines, each on its own 100-foot tower. That’s around 20,000 100-foot towers to generate as much as the whole Sheffield project. Generating the same amount of kilowatt hours from a commercial solar energy project would take at least 400 acres of photovoltaic panels. That’s the reality, although it is very hard to imagine those numbers on Vermont’s landscape.

In coming years, we are likely to begin seeing a real move away from liquid fossil fuels, especially for transportation. While that’s a good thing for the environment, it could eventually increase Vermont’s demand for electricity by as much as 30 percent. If we truly want to move to cleaner energy sources, we need to do the small stuff, but we have to do some big projects too.

Mountains are not being blasted apart. Yes, there is blasting and land clearing during construction, whether it’s a wind farm or new development up the sides of mountains in our ski resort communities.

However, when all is said and done, a wind farm has a relatively small physical footprint. The 16-turbine Sheffield project involved the clearing of approximately 63 acres for all the turbines and the roads combined, of which about 39 acres are now being left to re-vegetate (this was already occurring when I was at the site in the fall). Much of the land has been used for logging and other purposes in generations past, and some of the new 16-foot-wide roads follow old logging roads. Wildlife returns after construction, as it has at Sheffield.

There have been planning and siting discussions about wind development for more than 10 years now. While it is understandable that Vermonters who only recently started considering this issue might think there is no planning involved, there was in fact a Wind Siting Consensus Building Project sponsored by the Department of Public Service in 2002. The final report, detailed descriptions of the sessions that were conducted under the auspices of the Woodbury Dispute Resolution Center, and other papers are all available on the department’s website under “Renewables.”

The process included people from regional planning commissions, several hiking clubs, environmental and forest advocacy groups, utilities, developers, and state officials. Vermonters should take a look at the maps the participants reviewed. They show exactly where the best wind resources in the state are, just based on meteorological data. When one eliminates any sites on land where such development is legally prohibited, there are fewer potential sites. After then eliminating locations that are not reasonably close to existing transmission lines, very few feasible sites are left.

These are the maps developers start with, and they have been publicly available for all to see for 10 years. Although full consensus on this issue is unlikely, the few locations where wind projects might be feasible are also no secret.

We have been debating wind in Vermont for years. The discussion has involved genuine public processes in addition to the years of public regulatory proceedings for specific projects. Wind projects are large, even the relatively small ones being built or considered in Vermont. We can call them “industrial” or not, but in my job I am confronted by the urgency of our planet’s condition and by our limited options. WEC moved away from nuclear power years ago. Although we buy power from Hydro Quebec, I am very aware of the impact of those massive dams and the hundreds and hundreds of miles of giant transmission towers that are needed to bring Vermont’s share to the border. As I said, our options and our time are limited.
So I am not afraid to say that, in addition to far-greater efficiency in our energy use, and in addition to a lot more small-scale solar, wind, and other renewable projects becoming highly visible all across our landscape, we are in need of some serious industrial solutions as well, and soon. That’s the harsh reality.

We can no longer afford not to look at where our power comes from. We do need to accept wind into a few selected places in our landscape and to understand what it actually does for us. We have accepted ski areas on some of our most prominent mountains and everything that comes with that. We have, in the past, accepted logging roads throughout our hills and forests almost everywhere, including at what are now wind sites. We should insist that any projects be developed to the highest environmental standards and have the least-possible impact. But we have to put the benefit on the scale of impacts as well, otherwise this is not an honest conversation.

We are going to have to change the face of the planet in small ways in order to stop the damage we have done and are continuing to do in our ever-more-desperate attempts to get at the Earth’s fossil fuels. The alternatives all have consequences, too, but I would rather live with those consequences.

VTDigger

The Vermont Public Service Board has opened a proceeding to consider the proposed acquisition of the state’s largest utility, Central Vermont Public Service, by Gaz Metro, the Montreal-based company that already owns Green Mountain Power and Vermont Gas Systems. If approved, GMP and CVPS would be merged into one company serving over 70 percent of the state’s electricity consumers.

Every so often in the history of the utility industry in Vermont, a major event happens that shapes Vermont’s energy future for generations to come, often in ways that cannot be predicted at the time. Approval of the proposed merger of CVPS and GMP into a single foreign-owned company would certainly be such an event. This is a big deal, and why we should all pay attention and care about the outcome.

Washington Electric Co-op has asked to intervene in the PSB docket, as have other utilities and a number of other parties who feel they have a stake in the outcome. WEC is involved in several significant joint long-term relationships with GMP and CVPS for power supply, transmission and other matters. We have our own specific interests in how those relationships will be affected.

What happens to VELCO?

The issue that may be the hardest for most Vermonters to grasp, but which may be among the most significant, is VELCO, the statewide company that is owned by all of Vermont’s electric utilities. VELCO manages Vermont’s high-voltage transmission system. The ownership structure of VELCO and its affiliate, Vermont Transco (which actually owns the system), is unique in the country. It has given local utilities and state regulators a greater degree of control over the transmission grid within our borders than is found elsewhere. It has also given our small state a stronger voice in regional and national transmission issues than we might have had were the transmission system owned by a conventional for-profit company, as is usually the case.

CVPS and GMP together own a substantial majority of the shares in this system. What would happen to VELCO if it were now to be controlled by a private Canadian energy company and its investors? What happens if Gaz Metro is in turn sold or its ownership changes? How would this affect decisions about where transmission is built, who pays for it and who benefits? GMP has acknowledged concerns about this is in its proposal and has suggested a mechanism so that the new merged company does not immediately have a controlling share in VELCO. Whether this proposal provides sufficient long-term assurance that Vermont will retain control of this critical energy resource will likely be investigated and debated in the PSB proceeding.

We can’t foresee the future. Why care about this now?

That’s exactly why Vermonters should care. The present customers of CVPS and GMP will of course want to know how this might affect the quality of their service and their rates. But let’s assume for now that the Public Service Board determines that those customers will either benefit, or not be harmed, by the merger. Utility mergers are not that uncommon, after all. What makes this merger different?

The history of Vermont’s electric utility industry stretches back to the late 1800s. Over those many years, there have been a few major turning point moments that, for better or worse, set the course of Vermont’s energy future for generations to come. Those decisions determined not only what Vermont’s major power supply sources would be, but also who would own and control them and for whose benefit. This is one of those moments.

Vermont has not always made the right decisions at those moments, although we’ve made some good ones, too. Sometimes decisions were far too influenced by those who stood to gain financially from them. Sometimes, Vermont leaders passed on opportunities, perhaps not even realizing that a turning-point moment was upon them, to be regretted many years later with the wisdom of hindsight.

The global energy industry is changing dramatically. In Vermont, we have a strong desire for a cleaner energy future. Who will decide what to invest in? How much local renewables can we develop? Can we build a grid that will move massive amounts of renewable energy over great distances? How can we be sure that energy efficiency and conservation always come first? Transmission infrastructure decisions, at VELCO and beyond Vermont’s borders, will affect anyone making energy choices down the road. How can we assure that little Vermont does what’s best at home, and speaks up for what’s right as even bigger decisions get made at the regional, national and continental level?

Well, we can’t assure that, because we don’t even know exactly what major choices will actually be before Vermont, its utility managers, regulators and elected leaders, in five years or generations from now.

Who will be calling the shots, and on whose behalf?

What we can have some say about, today, is how a vital organization like VELCO is governed. VELCO manages Vermont’s transmission grid and its relationship to the regional grid system and beyond. Some will argue that in the big energy industry picture, tiny Vermont has little clout. Maybe that’s true, maybe not. But the real question is: who looks out for Vermont’s energy interests with whatever clout we do have? Who will be calling the shots when those decisions get made in the future? Depending on how far into the future we’re looking, we can’t even say which people will call those shots. What we can influence, today, is how those people will be chosen, whether they will be looking out for our interests and for those that come after us.

The proposed merger of CVPS and GMP into a single utility owned by a Canadian company that also owns Vermont’s natural gas utility is a big deal. There’s more at stake than simply who will be selling electricity to most of Vermont’s ratepayers or restoring their power during storms. That’s why all Vermonters should pay attention to this proposed change in ownership in Vermont’s energy industry.

VTDigger

Washington Electric Co-op (WEC) has produced a video tour of its landfill methane generating plant in Coventry, Vermont. The ten minute video was recorded during an open house held at the plant on November 4, 2009, and follows the tour actually given to visitors on that day.

“Co-op members, local residents and people in the energy business ask to see the plant all the time,” said WEC’s General Manager, Avram Patt. “Not everyone can make it when he have an open house, so we recorded the tour and have made it available to anyone online.”

The tour is posted on YouTube at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mp6SxzRIvo, and can be accessed from a link on WEC’s website homepage as well.

WEC is Vermont’s fifth largest and most rural utility, serving over 10,000 households and businesses in forty-one towns in Orange, Washington, Caledonia and Orleans Counties. Consumer-owned and governed by an elected board of directors, the Co-op has a strong historical commitment to energy efficiency, cleaner energy sources and to social and environmental responsibility in our communities and beyond.

The Coventry plant is located at Vermont’s largest landfill, which is owned and operated by New England Waste Services of Vermont (an affiliate of Casella Waste Systems). The facility began generating electricity in July 2005 and was subsequently been expanded in 2007 and 2009 to its present generating capacity of 8 megawatts. It is now generating over two-thirds of all the electricity used by WEC’s members and is expected to be an economical and stably priced source of energy for the Co-op for many years.

In addition to the Coventry plant, Washington Electric Co-op gets power from a number of small local renewable facilities including its own Wrightsville Hydro Station, as well as from the large hydro facilities of Hydro Quebec and the New York Power Authority. WEC also expects to begin receiving a portion of the output from First Wind’s project in Sheffield VT, which has received approval from the Vermont Public Service Board. WEC has no power supply commitments from fossil fuel or nuclear sources.

Additional information about the Coventry plant, about landfill methane generation generally, and about the Co-op is available on WEC’s website: www.washingtonelectric.coop.

Contact:

………………………………………………………………….

Avram Patt, General Manager
ONLINE VIDEO TOUR OF WASHINGTON ELECTRIC CO-OP’S LANDFILL GAS GENERATING PLANT

Washington Electric Co-op (WEC) has produced a video tour of its landfill methane generating plant in Coventry, Vermont. The ten minute video was recorded during an open house held at the plant on November 4, 2009, and follows the tour actually given to visitors on that day.

“Co-op members, local residents and people in the energy business ask to see the plant all the time,” said WEC’s General Manager, Avram Patt. “Not everyone can make it when he have an open house, so we recorded the tour and have made it available to anyone online.”

The tour is posted on YouTube at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mp6SxzRIvo, and can be accessed from a link on WEC’s website homepage as well.

WEC is Vermont’s fifth largest and most rural utility, serving over 10,000 households and businesses in forty-one towns in Orange, Washington, Caledonia and Orleans Counties. Consumer-owned and governed by an elected board of directors, the Co-op has a strong historical commitment to energy efficiency, cleaner energy sources and to social and environmental responsibility in our communities and beyond.

The Coventry plant is located at Vermont’s largest landfill, which is owned and operated by New England Waste Services of Vermont (an affiliate of Casella Waste Systems). The facility began generating electricity in July 2005 and was subsequently been expanded in 2007 and 2009 to its present generating capacity of 8 megawatts. It is now generating over two-thirds of all the electricity used by WEC’s members and is expected to be an economical and stably priced source of energy for the Co-op for many years.

In addition to the Coventry plant, Washington Electric Co-op gets power from a number of small local renewable facilities including its own Wrightsville Hydro Station, as well as from the large hydro facilities of Hydro Quebec and the New York Power Authority. WEC also expects to begin receiving a portion of the output from First Wind’s project in Sheffield VT, which has received approval from the Vermont Public Service Board. WEC has no power supply commitments from fossil fuel or nuclear sources.

Additional information about the Coventry plant, about landfill methane generation generally, and about the Co-op is available on WEC’s website: www.washingtonelectric.coop.

Contact:
Avram Patt, General Manager
802-223-5245
www.washingtonelectric.coop

VTDigger