Rep. Anne Donahue
Legislative Update
October 21, 2007
Last week, I participated in one of the five “Vermont’s Electricity Future” regional workshops that was created through legislation in 2006 to “engage the public” in helping to shape policy in planning for our future electricity needs. It was an absorbing and informative evening, but did little to meet the legislative goal to “to engage a broad base of Vermonters, including those who are currently engaged in energy issues as well as those who have not yet been engaged.”
Most of the people there were those who are already heavily involved and passionate about the energy debate in the state. As with so many areas of public policy, those who are already committed to ideals and values behind an issue are the ones who have the persistence to engage in public hearings. The so-called “silent majority” leaves its voice in their hands.
And so with the aid of “click pad” instant polling, about 100 residents of the greater Washington County area (including seven from Northfield, based upon the survey question about source of home electrical power) weighed in to say that we should place a high priority on ending the use of nuclear power (Vermont Yankee) and on electrical generating sources that add to greenhouse gasses, in favor of wind and renewable resources – pretty much whatever the cost.
For many years, we have known that we must plan for the end of current contracts for electricity in 2012. As the deadline grows nearer, there has been little agreement on the alternatives or on where we should turn next. The one area of agreement is that whatever the course, it is going to cost us a lot more than it does now.
While other states have faced jumps in costs of electricity that match the jump in the costs of fuels to produce electricity, we have been protected by two major contracts that locked prices at levels that are below the current market rates: Hydro Quebec, and Vermont Yankee. A renegotiated contract with Hydro Quebec in 2012 will not stay at that price; if Vermont Yankee’s license is renewed, its prices will also increase.
Those two contracts represent more than two thirds of our sources of electricity in Vermont. Two thirds! And love it or hate it, Vermont Yankee alone provides 40 percent of our current power.
So who participated in the discussion that will provide key input to the Governor, Legislature, and Department of Public Service on our energy options, and what did they say?
* They represented an older and significantly more highly educated group than the average local resident (also an indicator of greater wealth.) Only three percent had only a high school degree; the largest subgroup had graduate degrees.
* They held strong and clear priorities on eliminating the use of nuclear power, using power produced in-state, favoring small, regional facilities for production, and investing money into tax breaks and other financial incentives to expand the use of wind, solar, biomass and other renewable energy sources that do not increase greenhouse gasses.
The pressure for rapid expansion of renewable resources was so strong that participants called out disagreement with members of an expert panel who told them that the “full spigot” is already on in forces encouraging development of renewables as rapidly as they can be brought on board.
* This public is willing to pay for its energy priorities. On several scales, there was a strong commitment of willingness to pay more in monthly electric bills – with as many as a quarter saying they would be willing to pay more than $50 per month additional above any other cost in exchange for policy decisions that bear higher costs.
Indeed, 10 percent of those present were already “off the grid,” generating their own electricity – an admirable number, but probably not something within reach of the average Vermonter.
The poll questions didn’t clarify whether they were directed only at personal financial commitment towards the cause, in contrast to whether such increases would be fair as a burden to all. Participants weren’t necessarily saying that it was acceptable to impose that trade-off on others. Nonetheless, it is unlikely that this level of commitment would reflect a broader public sentiment; certainly it did not reflect the views, for example, of the young working families that we seek to encourage to stay in Vermont.
It brought to recollection the public outcry and debate over last year’s narrow proposed surcharge of a similar amount on the purchase of new “gas guzzler” vehicles. But that was a one-time fee on a new car purchase, not a monthly electric bill increase.
*Although willing to pay more and to raise more in taxes to obtain preferred options, there was not necessarily an openness to differences in opinions. So convinced were some members in my group that they had the optimal solutions that they proposed expedited permitting, and less opportunity for public opposition and “not in my back yard” obstruction, for their priority projects.
It was good to see the overwhelming percentage that endorsed wind also willing to see commercial wind farms from their yards, instead of supporting wind only as long as turbines are located somewhere else. However, beauty “in the eye of the beholder” was not a consideration.
If those who oppose new interstates running through their back yards and wetlands have the right to a fair voice in the approval process, how can those who oppose wind turbines on ridge lines seen from their decks and interfering with wildlife habitat not be allowed a full voice?
I happen to be a supporter of wind power, and would see commercial turbines in some areas (including from my view) as a worthwhile trade-off, but I wouldn’t “expedite” the existing approval processes to cut out those who disagree any sooner than I would support eliminating Act 250 protections for neighbors of land use development.
* Our discussion group objected to the apparent emphasis on cost trade-offs of various policy choices, instead on broader values. Reducing the carbon footprint (reducing greenhouse gasses), for example, was calculated by the presenters based upon the economic price tag of mitigating damages instead of the intrinsic social value of protecting the earth.
I thought that was an excellent reference point for what concerned me about the whole focus of the discussion: none of our policy values should be seen in isolation, and the tunnel-vision approach of refusing to put a price tag on the options we might all prefer for energy creates a denial of the importance of other social values.
Where do we balance our priorities for accessible health care? For housing? For our transportation infrastructure? For quality education?
The ultimate social justice and values issue is how we address those who are most vulnerable as persons in our society: how we address generational poverty, care of elders or those with disabilities; how we provide what Lincoln called “a fair start and an equal chance at the race of life.”
We live in a world of limited resources which, when overly strained, can hurt those most who most need help. The debate over how to achieve economic health and stability is wide-ranging, but the fact that it is a pre-cursor to achieving any other goals (such as investing in alternative energy resources so that we do not destroy our environment – or our economic stability – in the future) is less in doubt.
It might be better described as a “chicken-and-egg” relationship than a “pre-cursor,” but they are clearly interconnected. I didn’t see recognition of that interconnection in this discussion. The workshop raised very difficult questions about balancing our energy future, and the audience in attendance turned to simple solutions: catch more sun; catch more wind.
That denies the hard fact that those solutions, by 2012, cannot catch up with our current 40 percent reliance on nuclear power. We’ve also close to maxed out on the resources available through the power of water (to say nothing of the opposition to hydro dams by other interest groups: fishermen and those concerned about wildlife habitat.)
Ducking the hard questions is no more productive than avoiding the discussion altogether.
(I’ll continue the discussion of this workshop next week with the bright spot: the consensus recognition of the urgency of expanding efforts in energy efficiency.)
Please feel free to contact me about this or other pending issues in the 2008 legislative session, via counterp@tds.net or 485-6431.
Rep. Anne Donahue
Legislative Update
October 21, 2007
Last week, I gave an overview of my reactions to a public workshop on meeting the challenges of Vermont’s electricity future: how we need to plan now for sustaining sources for generating electricity after 2012, when we come to the end of our current, below-market rate contract with Hydro Quebec and the end of the current licensing of Vermont Yankee’s nuclear power plant.
It was frustrating to see the very difficult policy questions that were being outlined so quickly dismissed by an audience that was endorsing a “renewable energy at any cost” agenda in disregard of the delicate balance among our many social justice priorities.
Economic impacts mix with environmental priorities when we consider our commitment to job stability, to health care access, and to support of those in crisis or unable to sustain themselves, particularly children in poverty.
It brought to mind the comments that Sen. Peter Racine made this past summer in considering whether to recommend a multi-year commitment of expanded resources to support the new Catamount Health Plan after its budget collapsed even before start-up.
If his only role was as co-chair of the Health Care Commission, it would be an easy decision, he said. Such a commitment to funding was critical to the program’s success, and was justified.
But that isn’t his only role. He is also a state senator, with obligations to all of the programs and services of the state. He could not consider Catamount Health’s needs in a vacuum separate from Medicaid, transportation, public safety, or any of the other pre- and co-existing obligations of the state, he said.
Neither can we make energy resource decisions in isolation from broader economic and social policy impacts. All the costs must be balanced, and as integral as our earth’s environment is to the whole of our existence, it can not stand alone as the value that shapes all other values and priorities.
There was one bright spot of consensus that did blend future electrical energy generating resource priorities, economic impact and social values. Despite already being the national leader, we’ve barely begun to address the opportunities in energy efficiencies, and we need to place a significantly increased priority on this “win-win” piece of the puzzle.
Consider some of these estimated costs and social impacts:
Coal generated electricity is the greatest polluter and contributor to greenhouse gasses. It’s among the cheaper sources, at about six cents per kilowatt hour. We use little from that source now, but the country as a whole relies on it for 50 percent of its electrical generation. Do we want to be backed into using more?
Oil is a bit less environmentally unfriendly and similar in cost, but has the additional drawback of maintaining our reliance on overseas sources of energy – a very high concern among those polling at the electrical energy workshop, and probably among the broader public.
Natural gas is lower on the greenhouse gas side but up to double in cost, and has to be imported in, has less predictable costs, and has a finite supply.
Nuclear is almost completely “clean” on the emissions and carbon footprint end, and slightly cheaper than the other leading sources as well as an economic plus for the state. The drawbacks are high end ones: no national solution for safe storage of waste, high level waste currently stored in a pool of water at Vermont Yankee, a finite supply of nuclear fuel, and the risk, even if low, of a catastrophic accident.
If we do not continue with this power source, we loose 40 percent of our current (and cheapest) power source, with a probable outcome of being forced into purchasing more power generated by coal or oil.
Hydroelectric is environmentally friendly unless you are a fish or other water habitat-dweller, and more available to long term contracting (stable prices), but has little expansion potential in-state; we are under the control of developing a new contract with Hydro Quebec, with a guestimate increase in cost from the current eight to about 12 cents per kilowatt hour. Rejecting that option, however, would eliminate almost 30 percent of our current power source.
Biomass – wood burning or methane/gas from farm waste – can be an environmental plus because the carbon dioxide created from burning is recycled through the renewing of the resource of trees. Vermont is among the leader in the country in use of wood burning, with about eight percent of electricity produced through this higher cost source (about nine cents per kilowatt hour), but the ability to expand its is limited, and pollution from particulates in the air remain a concern.
Wind. Here we have the turbine/ scenic view controversy with its potential economic impact on Vermont’s single largest income base: tourism. It is completely free of greenhouse gas or other pollutants, but can put wildlife habitat at risk, and is also sustained irregularly, since it depends upon the blowing of the wind (electricity can’t be stored up for use.) It falls in the mid-level cost range at about nine cents per kilowatt hour.
If maximized in terms of use of siting, optimistic estimates are that wind could generate as much as 20 percent of our electrical needs within 10 years, or about halfway to replacement of Vermont Yankee.
Solar? Perfect in so many ways (yes, viable even in Vermont’s cold), but at three to four times the cost of others (about 30 cents per kilowatt hour), with most of the cost in major investments that have to come up front before seeing any benefits.
These comparison figures are all available in greater detail in the report produced by the Vermont’s Energy Future project, as directed by the legislature in 2006 under Act 208. More information about it can be accessed online at www.vermontsenergyfuture.info. This is a collaborative project that includes representatives of all the diverse points of view on energy source priorities under Act 208's directive (2006) “to develop a shared foundation of credible information that may serve as a basis for engaging in a meaningful dialogue.”
So what about further emphasis on energy efficiency? Doesn’t that cost money as well, in the tradeoff of purchasing less power (thus spending less)?
Yes, it does. But the cost is less than three cents per kilowatt hour – less than half of the very cheapest alternative, which is nuclear power.
Vermont’s success to date has been striking. Until 1974, the steady national slope of increased electricity was on a more rapid rise in Vermont, despite a generally lower use rate in the rest of New England. In fact, in 1972, Vermont’s residential use per person use caught up to the national average for the first time since 1940. During that time, electrical energy use increased from about 1,000 kilowatt hours per person to 7,000.
Since 1972, the national rate has continued to climb, now to more than 11,000 hours per person. New England has remained lower, but at close to a parallel rate of increase, now at about 9,000 hours per person.
Vermont has dropped its per person residential use. Dropped!
It kept at about a level rate of use until 1990, then began dropping to about 7,500 by 1996 and down to 7,000 kilowatt hours per person in 2006.
Residential use makes up more than a third of all use of electricity, so this is no insignificant change. This reduction comes at an electrical “use” rate (the costs to create the efficiencies) of under three cents compared to the six to 15 cent range of nuclear through gas. It obviously also has a positive impact, rather than negative, on greenhouse gases or other sources of pollution.
Much of that price tag has come through the electrical rate surcharge that we all pay – equivalent to the amount of electricity we use – to fund the work of Efficiency Vermont. We’ve saved roughly 10 to 15 percent from what our electricity use might otherwise be at.
Can we do more? The estimates are that we could achieve up to another 10 percent decrease, enough to make a real impact on the electrical costs that are likely to rise rapidly in Vermont after 2012.
What is stopping us? We have met the enemy, and it is us.
Imagine that in Northfield, chosen as a special Efficiency Vermont focus town for 2007-8, mobile home residents are not taking up the offer for free energy reviews that include light bulb replacement, help with improved insulation, and free replacement refrigerators. That’s right – they can’t give away their stock of free refrigerators, available to mobile home owners who have the oldest, most energy inefficient models.
Each of us is already paying for reduced cost efficiency light bulbs, through the electric bill surcharge. By not buying the low cost bulbs, we each throw away money two ways: once by not getting our money back for the surcharge already paid; twice by not getting the savings on future electric bills through using the ultra-efficient bulbs.
[Efficiency Vermont has come out with a one page summary sheet that responds to the question I raised last year: are we trading one environmental problem for another, since these bulbs include traces of mercury, with its long-term hazardous waste disposal problem? Yes, there is a 2.4mg mercury production in the use of compact fluorescent bulbs. But that compares to10 mg of mercury released into the atmosphere to produce the power to run a regular bulb for the same amount of time.]
This is too important an issue to not address as a result of political squabbling over how to pay for similar programs aimed at reducing the use of other greenhouses gasses. I was very pleased to hear the recent statement by House Majority Leader Gaye Symington that there will be a stronger effort to add detail to the proposals rejected by the Governor last spring because they were wide open to how they might be implemented.
I am personally committed to the effort to pass legislation this spring that will expand our efforts to make efficiency – electric and beyond – one of the cornerstones of our state’s future energy policies.
Please feel free to contact me about this or other pending issues in the 2008 legislative session, via counterp@tds.net or 485-6431.
(1) to provide a strong information dissemination component, in order;
(2) to be conducted in a manner that recognizes that potential choices for Vermont’s electric energy supply may be precluded by the passage of time;
(3).