Current Issue
July 2010
Check Out
Our Store  |
Inconvenient Choices:
The Future of Vermont's Energy Supply & Demand
By Carrie Chandler
Which would you choose: a 400-foot wind turbine with blinking red lights on the ridgeline, or blowing up a ridgeline altogether to access narrow seams of coal 1,000 feet below? What does it mean for Vernon residents that U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) has proclaimed that it will be "over [his] dead body" that Yucca Mountain will become the nation's storage site for nuclear waste? And if you live in Burlington, do you really care?
Wind or anti-wind, nuclear or anti-nuclear, coal or anti-coal - none of these positions helps the state move forward in building our energy future. Instead, they obscure the critical conversation, which is this: How will we generate our energy in five years? Ten years? Twenty years? Who will make those decisions? And what do our choices ultimately say about our relationship to the land, to fellow Vermonters, and to citizens outside the Green Mountains?
The first step is realizing that no single measure will fully eliminate our reliance on fossil fuels. Each energy option has positives and negatives, and we need to determine which of these we want to live with, and which we don't.
"If we don't plan for our future today, we will have to make very reactive decisions tomorrow," said Jan Blittersdorf, president and CEO of Hinesburg-based NRG Systems, a wind equipment manufacturer.
Currently, Vermont spends over $650 million each year to buy electricity, two-thirds of which comes through soon-to-expire contracts with the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in Vernon and Hydro-Quebec. The remaining third consists of market purchases from the New England power grid; hydropower; renewables, including methane, wind and solar power; and oil/natural gas.
Vermont's energy picture looks very different from the regional one. The bulk of energy in the New England power grid - 80 percent - comes from the burning of fossil fuels and nuclear plants, raising issues around greenhouse gas emissions and public safety and storage of nuclear waste, respectively.
If Vermont is not careful, the state's energy picture in the not-too-distant future could mirror that of the rest of the region. Along with depending on energy sources that are unreliable, because they are old or reaching their peak, Vermont could fall prey to the rising prices associated with those sources.
"We have run out of planning time. We need to take concrete steps today to ensure continuity in our energy portfolio," said Lisa Ventriss, executive director of the Vermont Business Roundtable.
The Department of Public Service (DPS) recently finished two years of workshops called "Participatory Energy Planning" using mediated modeling, which Commissioner David O'Brien described as, "an opportunity to bring all sides together in one room with the same facts, and have them wrestle with the tough energy decisions that we have to make." With representation from public utilities, non-profits, industry, and the Legislature, the group created different energy scenarios for Vermont's future. But, ultimately they made no recommendations for Vermont's future energy portfolio in their report to the Legislature in January.
In the absence of additional action, DPS has estimated that Vermont is on track to use 16 percent more power in 2015 than we do today. ISO New England, which operates the region's power grid and wholesale electric markets, has said that by 2008, New England may not have sufficient supply to meet the new demand. Although Vermont does not rely on the regional power grid for the bulk of our energy, the state is already starting to feel that strain. Utility companies throughout the state are already requesting double-digit rate increases to deal with natural gas and oil costs that have tripled since 2002.
The Efficiency Plan
Becoming more efficient is an imperative for Vermont, no matter what else the state chooses to rely on for energy. According to Blair Hamilton, deputy director of Efficiency Vermont, the state could reduce overall electric use by 20 to 30 percent through conservation and efficiency measures. "This means that one-third of the energy we use is cheaper to save than it is to supply," he noted.
Investing in efficiency is also cheaper than buying energy and Efficiency Vermont has proven that it works. From 2000 to 2005, the program slowed Vermont's average growth rate in energy use by half. Each megawatt hour cut costs $25 - $31, less than half of the price Vermont would have paid for this energy.
Spending money on efficiency not only helps Vermont lower its energy usage, but also contributes to the economy of the state. "When we buy energy supply, 80 percent of the money is leaving the state," said Hamilton. "If that money is spent on efficiency, approximately 80 percent is spent on local goods and services," like buying light bulbs at the local hardware store and hiring local contractors to weatherize homes.
Biomass, Hydropower and Methane
Aside from efficiency, several options for Vermont lie in renewable energy, including biomass, hydropower, methane, wind, and solar. There are currently two biomass power plants in the state - in Ryegate and Burlington - generating a total of 73 megawatts, or 6.5 percent of Vermont's needs, from burning woodchips. Two additional plants in Sheldon and Ludlow are in the planning stages. A report released last year by the Vermont Public Interest Research Group estimated that biomass could supply 19 percent of our total energy needs by 2015 while ensuring the continuation of more than 12,000 well-paying jobs.
Hydropower currently provides 40 percent of Vermont's energy, when Hydro-Quebec's output is combined with other sources. But the state's hydro potential is not tapped out at that, with the potential of 420 megawatts at existing, unused dams, according to Community Hydro, a Plainfield-based hydroelectric company. The energy from hydro is the definition of "local and renewable," with generation occurring in state and dependent on our own rivers. However, dams can be a barrier to fish travel, and will have to be retrofitted to meet current state hydro standards and maintain a set water flow.
Methane is the other renewable gaining in popularity, largely through programs like Central Vermont Public Service's (CVPS) Cow Power program. Two farms currently provide electricity to CVPS through methane digesters that convert cow manure and other farm waste; an additional four sites are slated to go on line by the end of the year. CVPS estimates that each farm will produce between 1.3 and 3.5 million kilowatt hours per year.
Heavy Hitters: Nuclear
While biomass, hydropower, and methane are relatively safe, clean ways to provide energy without generating much opposition, they can only provide a portion of our energy. It is the larger resources of nuclear, wind, and coal that inspire passionate diatribes from both supporters and detractors, in proportion to their potential yield and environmental impacts.
Built in 1972 with a 40-year lifespan, Vermont Yankee is one of the nation's oldest operating nuclear power plants. The original contract expires in 2012, but Entergy, the Louisiana-based owner of the plant, is applying for a 20-year license extension, following its successful uprate request in 2005 to run the plant at 120 percent of its designed capacity.
In the past two years, Vermont Yankee has misplaced highly radioactive fuel rods, had a transformer fire that caused the plant to shut down, discovered cracks in the plant's steam dryer, measured higher than legal radiation levels at its fence line, and had a cooling system - which would cool the reactor core during an emergency - deemed inoperable by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). It has also produced more than one million pounds of radioactive waste in the past 35 years that, thanks to a deal with the Legislature in 2005, is now stored in dry casks on the banks of the Connecticut River.
While the per-kilowatt cost of nuclear power is attractive, opponents point out that it does not include external costs of security, liability and industry subsidies, which they estimate to be $100 billion tax dollars.
"By choosing another twenty years for Vermont Yankee, you are taking all that money off the table, not to be invested in other energy alternatives," said Chris Williams of Citizens Awareness Network, a regional anti-nuclear group.
Nuclear still has its supporters, however, particularly in the business community. Ventriss of the Vermont Business Roundtable called it the cleanest and most reliable option. "Yes, there are issues around disposal, but we have to remember that that is a federal issue, not a state issue," she said, referring to the long delayed plan for national storage at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. The Roundtable believes nuclear power is the best option for a reliable base load in Vermont. "Large industries like IBM need very high quality electricity that doesn't hiccup through the day," Ventriss said.
Heavy Hitters: Wind
The "hiccup," or intermittent supply of energy, is one of the primary arguments against wind. Unlike the other sources of Vermont's power, wind energy cannot be turned on or off, thus making it a good complement to other energy sources. When it is windy, the turbines generate energy. When it is calm, utilities have to rely on other sources to provide the energy they need. "Wind complements the peak-load supply sources, which are typically the most expensive sources," said Martha Staskus, vice president of Vermont Environmental Research Associates, a consulting company in Waterbury Center that provides siting, feasibility analysis, and project management services to electric utilities and wind industries.
A 2003 study conducted by Princeton Energy Resources International found that Vermont has the potential for 6,000-7,000 megawatts of generating capacity from wind turbines. With Vermont's seasonal peak energy loads falling just under 1,100 megawatts in 2006, this means that if we chose to, we could theoretically provide all of our electric needs with wind power. Other wind power advocates have estimated that Vermont could generate up to 20 percent of our energy needs on just four percent of the state's 500 miles of ridgeline.
"On average throughout the year a wind farm will generate 30 to 35 percent of its rated capacity," said Blittersdorf of NRG Systems. "A utility will use a wind farm as a primary source, meaning that they will always use the power generated when it is available and scale a fossil fuel plant up or down as needed."
Using wind to augment other power sources may also save consumers and utilities money. Although there are upfront costs with building a wind farm, just as there are with building new power plants, once they are running, "there are no fuel costs and the supply is endless," said Blittersdorf. Wind powered utilities have less overhead expense to pass on to their customers, she said, so the cost of the electricity remains stable, allowing utilities to lock in long-term pricing.
However, wind power sufficient to replace power currently purchased from Vermont Yankee or Hydro-Quebec requires large turbines on Vermont's mountains. Currently, the state has one wind farm in Searsburg that generates six megawatts, and provides power for 2,000 Vermont households, but that is not enough for wind to comprise a meaningful slice of Vermont's energy pie. There are proposals for other wind farms in the state, from the Deerfield Wind Project, which is currently under review by the Forest Service and the Public Service Board, to a proposal for a farm in Sheffield.
"The major barriers to wind are political leadership and public support," Blittersdorf said. "There are several wind farms proposed in the state right now and what's holding them up are permitting and vocal opponents."
Two citizen groups that oppose wind are the Ridge Protectors and Kingdom Commons, both out of the Northeast Kingdom. "We are opposed to industrial wind power development because it would 'industrialize' our ridgelines with massive structures up to 420 feet tall, and change the character of our landscapes for a radius of up to 15 miles. The project would also affect the tourism economy that so many Vermont towns rely on," said Paul Brouha of Kingdom Commons.
The answers to the state's energy needs, according to Brouha, lie in small-scale generation and net metering, where excess power from individual households is sold back to the utility. He also supports renegotiating the contracts with Yankee and Hydro-Quebec, describing them as "emissions-free options, largely paid for" including the political, social and environmental costs.
Governor Jim Douglas and his administration have been rhetorically supportive of renewable energy, including wind, but short on action. "With a state environment that is ambivalent at best when it comes to commercial wind development, it is difficult to understand how Vermont will capture and utilize this important resource," said Sybil Cioffi of Catamount Energy Corporation, a renewable energy company in Rutland. There are proposals to add 141 megawatts to Vermont's wind portfolio, but these have either been cancelled or are stuck in the permitting process.
More frequently, conversations on wind power degenerate into exchanges of epithets and hypothetical scenarios, among citizens and elected officials alike. Douglas, for example, told VPR that, "I've heard some people ask rhetorically, 'How are you going to like it when you're hiking the Long Trail and you have the constant whir of a huge 400-foot windmill next to the trail and you have the birds and bats that are being killed by the blades falling down on you while you're hiking the trail?'" His office, however, declined to provide examples of existing or proposed wind farms within auditory or visual proximity to the Long Trail, or instances of hikers being struck with wildlife killed by wind turbines.
Heavy Hitters: Coal
The impact of wind power on outdoor enthusiasts may be hypothetical, but the costs of coal are real even if it seems far removed from this state. Vermont has no coal extraction or coal-fired power plants, a major reason that it has the lowest per-capita CO2-emissions profile in the country, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
But in addition to greenhouse gas emissions, coal extraction presents a myriad of environmental and social problems that remain invisible to Vermonters, even as our reliance on the power grid affects others.
The vista of "Wild and Wonderful" West Virginia today includes the ravages of mountaintop removal - the process of extracting coal by scraping off trees, plants, and topsoil, then blasting away up to 800 feet of dirt to get at that thin seam of coal. The blast can be 100 times as powerful as the one in the Oklahoma City bombing. Once the sediment is loose, it is carted off by trucks with tires that are over six feet tall, and dumped into the nearest valley, effectively strangling any nearby streams and permanently altering the ecology. Once the seam is exhausted, the whole process begins again, on another mountain.
The West Virginia Highlands Conservancy estimates that 500,000 acres have already been destroyed, including the land belonging to Maria Gunnoe in Bobwhite, whose family has lived there for generations. Gunnoe lives downstream from a mountaintop removal site opened in 2000 that has since caused her land to flood seven times.
"The biggest flood was on June 16, 2003, and that's when there was actually about five acres of my land washed away. The big gulley out here in my front yard, that is just a part of what is gone," she said. Those floods have changed her family's life. "Every time it rains, I sit right out there on that porch until the streams go down so that my children can sleep at night. When all this flooding first started taking place, I'd find my daughter sitting on the edge of the bed at 2, 3, 4 o'clock in the morning. Shoes, clothes, coat, a hat, gloves, everything. Ready to go."
Mountaintop removal has also altered Gunnoe's community from formerly close-knit neighbors to ghost towns. "Mountaintop removal has changed the environment around here to where it's almost, at this point, uninhabitable. And people tend to leave. A phenomenal number of communities that have just boarded up and closed down.
"What's going on, it is genocide," Gunnoe said. "It is killing out a culture of people."
Our Choices Define Our Values
These are the energy options on the table for Vermont. We need honest discussion, and real leadership, regarding how our decisions will impact the land, our fellow Vermonters, and people in other regions producing power we purchase on the market. We cannot ignore the fact that whatever we choose to supply our energy will not completely offset our need for fossil fuels and will incur some kind of cost.
"Right now, the whole discussion has become chaotic and confusing; there's a lot of chatter out there, a lot of background noise," Ventriss said.
Not even the most draconian efficiency measures can eliminate the need for electricity, so the choice is not simply wind or no wind - it is wind, or nuclear, or coal or natural gas, each with its attendant costs and benefits, particularly at the point of production. There are no free passes in this game.
Carrie Chandler is a freelance writer living in Barre.
Back to Top
Vermont Woman is a forum for news, issues, features, arts and entertainment from the perspective, experience, and voices of Vermont women. Vermont Woman is a monthly newspaper published in South Burlington, Vermont and is excerpted here on this site. All content ©Copyright 2009, Vermont Woman Publishing |
|
