Editor’s note: This op-ed is by Milton Eaton of Brattleboro, a former Vermont and U.S. Economic development official. He attended the Kyoto Conference as a representative of the U.S. Department of Energy.
The Vermont Department of Public Service is attempting to finalize a 600+ page energy plan to guide state policy for decades. Yet, the plan fails to address important questions for businesses and consumers. What are the costs of these radical changes? How will they be prioritized to give the greatest benefit for the buck? Who will pay? How will these additional cost effect all Vermonters? Who will have skin in the game?
The deadline for public comment has been extended until Nov. 4, a thoughtful decision by Commissioner Elizabeth Miller that recognizes the plan’s length and potential impact on our future. This plan seeks truly holistic changes in our economy: electricity, transportation, and other fuel uses. It discusses past energy prices, the benefits of electric vehicles, the history and status of in-state hydro projects, and the aesthetics of wind power. It outlines the benefits of energy efficiency and developments in renewable energy. Yet it is short of specific solutions and especially short on their projected costs. It is a political selling tool, not a serious plan.
For example: it notes how Vermont is afflicted by high fossil fuel costs. “Last year, Vermonters paid over $600 million to “import” fossil fuels for use in our homes, businesses and other buildings… That is almost $300 million more than we were paying a decade earlier.” So, what does that show? Nothing.
One of the few competitive advantages that Vermont currently has over neighboring states is our cost of electricity because a third of it comes from ultra-low cost Vermont Yankee contract. According to the EIA, Vermont pays 7.8 percent less for electricity than the New England average. Yet the report, instead of assuring efforts to keep low-cost replacement power, talks of one possible scenario of conservation and renewable power, “the total bill impact for renewable resources amount to $292 million over 20 years.” This one change alone would cost each household in Vermont more than $1,150 and affect our competitive edge.
Furthermore, the state admits that its main engine for renewable energy funding is stalled. The Vermont Clean Energy Development Fund, which has received more than $28 million in state support from Entergy, operator of the Vermont Yankee plant, has “suspended its grant programs and has put the loan program on hold until a new program design can be approved.” Who do you expect will be on the hook for this boondoggle? I think we will.
The DPS report does not account for the possibility that Vermont Yankee may operate after its current license expires in March 2012. This is a question in federal court right now. Win lose or draw an appeal is expected.
What should the DPS be doing?
As a former planner and strategic planning manager, there are basic steps in planning. First, it should assess how much it will cost ratepayers for utilities to meet safety and reliability minimums if Vermont Yankee closes. Out of state nuclear and natural gas power, the chief replacement components, are all imports and will be higher priced in the long-term.
The DPS should tell us more how the one truly limited resource, money, will be spent where it will be most effective. For guidance, it should look to the comprehensive energy study prepared by Kavet, Rockler & Associates and others for the Vermont Joint Fiscal Office. It found that the best economic and environmental course to follow would be to operate Vermont Yankee and aggressively add renewable power.
The current DPS draft report notes that Vermonters drive 12,297 miles per capita annually, the sixth largest amount in the United States. Maybe the best thing we can plan for them is to maintain and improve our road system to reduce their maintenance costs until there are better, more efficient vehicles that meet their needs and choices. Governments have shown a poor record in picking winners in innovation.
Vermont needs an energy plan that addresses future energy cost estimates and benefits. It also needs to know the costs of losing Vermont Yankee. Maybe it’s not too late to ask the Governor to reverse course.
Nothing, economically and environmentally speaking, makes more sense to me than continuing to safely operate Vermont Yankee, until new technology demonstrates a better, more affordable, cleaner alternative. Higher cost energy will only deny a better life for the poor and reduce our job opportunities.
