Editor’s note: This commentary is by Jock Gill, of Peacham, an internet communications consultant who served in President Bill Clinton’s Office of Media Affairs. He is town energy coordinator in Peacham.
[I] want to challenge us to think out of the box about the word “sustainable.” Is it nearly radical enough to address the radical changes climate disruption will force upon us?
As for myself, I use words such as regenerative, thriving and resilient. I look for radical equality, justice as fairness, and a new economy that is appropriate for a finite planet. I very much doubt we can either consume or sustain our way out of our climate risks. Our challenge is made even greater by the gutting of the middle class by the GOP’s radical redistribution of wealth to the top 1%. This redistribution is destroying the foundation of our economic well being and prosperity, severely limiting our range of options.
In the end, I view the word “sustainable” as a very misleading and thus very dangerous word. Will, for example, sustainable get us to 10 cent kWhs?
Getting to 10 cent kWhs is possible, but only by thinking outside the box and envisioning approaches that do not fully exists today. Does sustainable even promote thinking outside of the box or of thinking of things that do yet exist? How does sustainable, for example, get us to switch from centralized generation and transmission of electricity to decentralized micro-grids of local generation and storage, but no transmission, in which every producer is a buyer and seller? If we make this switch, we can get to 10 cent kWhs, perhaps even closer to 5 cents.
My goal, as a member of Peacham’s energy committee, is to help Peacham meet the state’s environmental goals, as well as make it possible for all Peachamites to buy electricity at 10 cents per kWh or less. This 10 cent price point simply cannot be reached by utilities who have to incur transmission costs. Transmission costs, by the way, will render centralized power plants “stranded assets,” regardless of technology. Do we really want to subsidize and invest in stranded assets?
Vermont, however, has an opportunity to take advantage of recent and emerging concepts and technologies that would benefit all Vermonters. Vermont could choose to create the Vermont Department of Strategic Electrification to promote and coordinate the rapid implementation of:
• EV adoption
• PV and other distributed renewable energy technologies
• Town microgrids and energy systems
• Local storage
• V2G – Vehicle to grid
• V2H – Vehicle to home
• EV charging stations at price points lower than gasoline
• Hybrid hot water heaters
• Cold weather heat pumps
• Weatherization of all buildings
Presently, I see no unified approach to strategic electrification in Vermont.
Take the case of the Public Utility Commission. It has a stated goal of providing Vermonters with the best price for reliable electricity. From the PUC website: “The Commission’s mission is to ensure the provision of high-quality public utility services in Vermont at minimum reasonable costs, consistent with the long-term public good of the state.” A key question is what is a public utility in the 21st century? Is it the principal source of energy or is it only the backup source and network administrator?
The PUC, however, has not yet come to grips with the need to abandon transmission costs as soon as possible. It appears that the PUC is NOT actively encouraging town energy production, microgrids and local storage. The PUC’s “preferred siting” limits, as currently written, make it very hard for a town to generate its own electricity for its citizens. The 50% onsite use rule is a killer. This means the PUC is actually a barrier to the state meeting its environmental goals, much less the goal of delivering the least cost electricity to all Vermonters. Additionally, we must make it legal for at least town energy plants to sell power across property lines. For an optimal energy economy, we need real time buy and sell options for ALL power producers, including home owners.
Vermont has to think outside the box and take steps in some new directions if it is to have any chance to meet its environmental goals while reducing the cost of electricity for all (economic development).
If we have the courage to abandon “sustainable,” there is a whole new world of fresh ideas and exciting opportunities to discover and or invent.
