The Vermont Public Service Board will be holding a public hearing on the proposed expansion of Vermont Gas facilities.

Vermont Gas Systems Expansion

Thursday evening, March 21, 2013

7:00 p.m 

Champlain Valley Union High School in Hinesburg, Vermont

At a time when climate change is upon us we must think carefully about putting in place new fossil fuel systems that will be around for a very long time. Keeping us hooked on fossil fuels for many years is a bad idea.

The Board will be considering the proposed route, which runs through valuable wetlands and farmland. This is the beginning of a bigger project to supply gas across Lake Champlain to New York. It also moves Vermont closer to being able to access gas supplies from fracking, which is ongoing in New York and Pennsylvania.

Come let the Board know what concerns you have. Tell the Board you want to make sure energy is used wisely and that Vermont takes steps now to reduce our addiction to fossil fuels. It is important for the Public Service Board to hear from you.

An offshore wind farm off the coast of the Netherlands. Image courtesy of Nuon @ flickr

From California to Craigsville Beach on Cape Cod, nearly twelve hundred people joined together over the past week to voice their support for Cape Wind’s clean, renewable energy and to oppose the ongoing delays depriving our country of its first offshore wind project. Their comments were directed at the Department of Energy (DOE), which was seeking the public’s input as the agency considers a federal loan guarantee for Cape Wind. The immediate issue before DOE is whether to accept the project’s Final Environmental Impact Statement in its consideration of the loan. The rigorous environmental review has been deemed more than adequate by the country’s leading national, regional and local environmental organizations, including Greenpeace, the National Wildlife Federation, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Mass Audubon, Conservation Law Foundation and more.

In a letter sent to DOE on Monday, more than two dozen environmental, clean energy, public health, business and labor stakeholders urged the agency to proceed without delay to consider and grant a loan guarantee for Cape Wind. The letter stated, “Cape Wind will concretely advance the nation’s objectives in addressing the challenge of climate change while promoting energy security and economic development. Following an extremely lengthy and rigorous environmental review, the Cape Wind project should proceed for consideration and grant of a loan guarantee without further delay. Such action will help lay the strongest possible foundation for offshore renewable energy development in the United States.”

Cape Wind Now’s petition to DOE activated Cape Wind supporters across the country who invoked everything from protecting their children’s future to much-needed jobs to national pride in calling on DOE to approve a federal loan guarantee for the project and unleash the potential of offshore wind, one of the country’s most promising, but as yet untapped, sources of clean, renewable energy. Supporters railed against the decade of delay perpetuated by fossil fuel billionaire Bill Koch and his Cape Wind opposition group, the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound. In yet another delay tactic, the Alliance and a couple of House Republicans recently sought to distract DOE and wrap up the loan guarantee process in red tape by questioning the completed, thoroughly researched and vetted environmental review. “No more delays!” was the common refrain from petitioners, including many Cape residents, who pleaded with DOE to do everything in its power to get the wind turbines built now.

DOE announced in November 2012 that it was considering a federal loan guarantee for the project. The DOE loan guarantee is a key component of Cape Wind’s financing, lowering the cost of the project’s debt and ultimately the cost of Cape Wind to Massachusetts ratepayers. DOE will issue its decision in the coming months.

Want to stay current on Cape Wind’s progress? Sign up to receive email updates from Cape Wind Now.

Senator Bernie Sanders is hosting a Global Warming Conference – What does it mean for Vermont?  — on Saturday March 16 from 10am to 4pm at Montpelier High School in Montpelier Vermont.

Bill McKibben will be the Keynote Speaker and Senator Sanders will be joined by Vermont and national leaders for workshops and discussions about climate change and what it means for Vermont.

I am pleased to join Senator Sanders and Bill McKibben for this event. It is a great opportunity to learn more about how we can tackle climate change together.

The event is free and open to the public and lunch will be provided.

More information is available here.

Mount Tom power plant in Holyoke, MA.

A familiar story appears to be unfolding at the Mt. Tom coal plant in Holyoke, Massachusetts. According to recently released documents, the owner submitted what is known as a Dynamic Delist Bid with ISO New England (ISO-NE), the operator of the New England electricity system and markets, and ISO-NE accepted the bid.

This means that during the 2016-2017 capacity commitment period the plant will not be obligated to run and will not receive any capacity payments. The plant could still run and be paid for the electricity it makes, but the act of de-listing means that Mt. Tom’s owner thinks there is a significant chance it will not be economic for the plant to run during that year.

This is not surprising given the sharp decline in how often the plant has been running over the past few years:

This news is particularly significant for two reasons:

• First, submitting a de-list bid to leave the market for one year has been the first step on the path to retirement for two other coal-fired plants in Massachusetts, Somerset Station and Salem Harbor Station;
• and Second, the fact that ISO-NE accepted the de-list bid means that it determined that Mt. Tom can exit the capacity market for that timeframe without any impact on reliability. That’s a good indication that Mt. Tom could permanently retire without impacting the system, although some additional analysis would need to be done.

Although this is welcome news, because it means the end of a long legacy of pollution, it is not surprising. Even Brayton Point, New England’s largest power plant is facing desperate financial circumstances. Coal-fired power plants have been faltering across the country over the last two years, and CLF, Coal Free Massachusetts and local allies have been warning that Mt. Tom is not only a polluting, outdated relic but that it is also an unprofitable, unstable source of revenue for the City of Holyoke and that now is the time to plan for a cleaner, brighter future.

A task force created to examine the issue of retiring, demolishing, and eventually redeveloping the sites of aging coal-fired power plants in the Commonwealth will be visiting Holyoke on March 6 for a meeting with ISO-NE and a tour of the Mt. Tom plant.  CLF and its local allies are urging the task force to open this meeting to the public and to solicit more public input on the process.  Thus far, although meetings have been open to the public, there has been little effort to engage local community members.  Engaging the public is critical to an open, fair, transparent process that will create results that the entire community can get behind.

An offshore wind farm off the coast of the Netherlands. Image courtesy of Nuon @ flickr

As of June 2012, the world boasted 4,619 megawatts of installed offshore wind energy capacity, while the United States had none. President Obama and other national leaders like Susan Collins want to change that statistic. The public also increasingly supports clean renewable energy in the wake of frequent severe weather events like Hurricane Sandy caused by climate change.

The biggest barrier to developing offshore wind energy has been criticism of its cost compared to other forms of energy. But offshore wind technology is in its infancy; it must be tested and supported much like subsidies were provided for the testing and development of oil and gas exploration. A recent study by the Brattle Group contained two findings that I found interesting.

- First, the study estimates the total investment needed to develop a U.S. offshore wind industry and how that investment would affect the price of electricity. The study showed that offshore wind could cost less to develop than subsidies paid for coal, oil and gas over the last 50 years.

- Second, the study estimates that offshore wind would result in an average monthly-rate increase for American consumers ranging from 0.2 percent to 1.7 percent.

Considering the huge amount being added to our tax bills to finance natural disaster relief from increased hurricanes, tornadoes and other weather events caused by global warming, this modest increase in electric rates to switch to cleaner power is a no brainer.

Here in New England, we have several potential opportunities for offshore wind: Cape Wind in Massachusetts, DeepWater Wind projects in Rhode Island, and the Hywind Maine pilot project in Maine.

What do you think? Would you pay a little more for electricity tax to reduce our dependence on fuels that add to global warming?

(photo credit: Jack Zalium/flickr)

Get ready: long-simmering chatter among lobbyists and officials in state houses and administrative agencies is about to become a loud, insistent chorus proclaiming that New England needs to give Canadian hydropower financial incentives so that our region can meet renewable energy and climate goals. This policy change would be a wrong turn for a region that is trying to build a truly clean energy future.

As we’ve been discussing for several years now, Québec and other eastern Canadian provinces are eager to increase power exports to New England, including through proposed transmission projects like Northern Pass. Our neighbors to the north have developed and are building more power than they need, and, until New England power prices began their historic decline, the economic motivation for increasing exports was clear: Canadian utilities like Hydro-Québec could sell power to customers in New England and the northeastern U.S. at much higher prices than their own domestic customers are paying. Profits from existing exports to the United States were and remain a major contributor to those utilities’ bottom lines, and they saw and planned to take advantage of a major opportunity to increase profits with new transmission capacity and newly developed hydropower facilities.

The economics behind this long-term Canadian strategy are increasingly in question. Following on the heels of recent technical analysis questioning the strategy’s underpinnings, the most recent projections from the U.S. Energy Information Administration show that total U.S. imports of all energy and electricity in particular are slated to decline over the next fifteen years, with electricity imports never again to achieve the peak level of imports seen in 2012. Given the availability of U.S.-based energy supplies at lower long-term prices, especially natural gas but also wind and other renewable sources, there will be less market demand in the U.S. for Canadian power. These projections reflect a very different reality from the prevailing expectations in 2008, when Hydro-Québec’s strategic plan and the Northern Pass proposal were taking shape. In a research note published last week, Stéphane Marione of Canada’s National Bank Financial warned that “none of the Canadian energy-producing provinces can ignore the profound changes that are taking place in the U.S.”

Montréal, we have a problem. In this new world, the potential market profits from Hydro-Québec’s export strategy are far less compelling. Hydro-Québec may not be able to sell power in New England at the prices it needs to recover the costs of building new transmission like the Northern Pass project and new hydropower projects like the Romaine complex and also return substantial export-driven dividends to the provincial budget.

One possible way that Hydro-Quebec could restore some of these profits is by convincing New England states to increase the price New England customers will pay for Canadian hydropower above the market price. While this may directly contradict the widely held assumption (and marketing claim) that Canadian hydropower is a low-cost power source that is economic without any special incentives, the cognitive dissonance has not prevented Hydro-Québec and Northern Pass developer Northeast Utilities from lobbying New England states to achieve just this goal, an effort CLF has opposed around the region, including in New Hampshire. (Hydro-Québec succeeded several years ago in convincing Vermont to allow its power to count towards a portion of the state’s renewable targets.)

Although the utilities’ lobbying is mostly outside the public view, it is increasingly occurring out in the open, with a direct and urgent new tone. Case in point: Hydro-Québec and Northeast Utilities recently filed comments on Connecticut’s draft energy strategy, which contained some language favoring expansion of Connecticut’s renewable portfolio standard program to include Canadian hydropower, the very policy change that the utilities are seeking. (Incidentally, the final strategy, released last week, made a few changes to the language, and Connecticut is now considering whether and how it might incentivize new imports in a separate study, which is due out soon.) So what did they say?

Hydro-Québec, through its U.S. trading subsidiary HQUS, commented that hydropower should be counted towards meeting Connecticut’s renewable objectives and that its hydropower is less costly than other renewables, but not all power in the marketplace:

HQUS urges Connecticut to recognize Hydro-Québec hydropower as a renewable resource and consider how it might contribute to achieving renewable objectives, as well as other important energy and economic goals. HQUS recognizes that Connecticut has multiple objectives for its renewable programs including to support the development of in-state and in-region resources and emerging technologies. However, if Connecticut’s priority is to maintain its commitment to renewable supply in a cost-effective matter, consideration should be given to the participation of Canadian hydropower. Allowing these resources to contribute to renewable objectives offers a pragmatic way for the state to lower program costs in the near term and, if desired, to extend and increase renewable goals into the future. An approach that values the multiple benefits of Canadian hydropower could also create a market signal necessary in today’s market to promote the infrastructure needed for incremental deliveries into the region for the benefit of all consumers….

Some stakeholders suggest that Hydro-Québec hydropower facilities are “cheap” or low cost to construct. This is incorrect. In fact the cost of building hydropower facilities is significant and generally also requires the construction of new transmission facilities to deliver generator output to load centers, which is also very costly. (Hydro-Québec has also proven successful in the development and construction of transmission facilities to deliver large quantities of electricity over long distances.) However, even with the added cost of transmission to deliver hydropower from Quebec into New England, HQUS estimates its costs to be significantly less than the cost of the delivering equivalent quantities of renewable power from other potential renewable resources in and near New England.

Northeast Utilities, through its Connecticut subsidiary Connecticut Light & Power, commented that hydropower delivered through new transmission projects should get incentives, which would count against the state’s current renewable requirements:

Connecticut has an opportunity to tap into Canadian hydroelectric facilities that are available now or under development, through the development of new transmission infrastructure. A Connecticut RPS market design, which acknowledges that RPS can not only enable new generation, but also support new, clean energy transmission infrastructure could, in this instance, provide for significant Connecticut customer savings….

CL&P believes Connecticut could create a new class of RECs for incremental hydro-electric supply that is delivered over a new transmission interconnection that has been built as an economic project (as opposed to a reliability-based one) which would supplant the need for meeting some portion of Class I RPS requirements….

CL&P believes that embracing large scale hydro power delivered on new transmission as a qualified renewable would meet all three of the State’s energy goals:

• It would be cheaper than other clean energy resources,
• It is clean with very low lifecycle CO₂ emissions, established by independent scientific reviews, and
• It is reliable, and would lessen the region’s dependence on natural gas for power generation needs.

It’s clear from these comments – and the utilities’ growing campaign to secure changes to New England’s renewable energy policies – that they are looking for subsidies from electric ratepayers to support new hydropower imports into the region. In fact, the Northeast Utilities comments constitute a direct effort to secure ratepayer subsidies for Canadian hydropower transmitted over Northern Pass, something Northeast Utilities repeatedly claimed it would not seek and does not need (e.g., here, here,  and here).* (For the record, they are mischaracterizing the emissions benefits to support their argument for subsidies. But that’s another story, well chronicled in prior posts.) Certainly, Hydro-Québec’s own comments reveal that its power can no longer beat the market on its own.

It’s also clear that, depending on how it is pursued, this kind of policy change threatens to put New England’s renewable energy industry at a deep and unfair disadvantage and to undermine its growth. Even Northeast Utilities, in the comments linked above, acknowledges this risk.

CLF has been clear that more Canadian hydropower could be a good thing for the region under the right conditions. But why should New England customers be forced to pay an above-market price? State renewable portfolio laws are intended to get new renewable projects built here, not to force ratepayers to pay extra to improve the economics of Québec’s new hydropower facilities and specific transmission development plans. That’s why CLF strongly objected to the draft Connecticut strategy’s mention of potential inclusion of Canadian hydropower in Connecticut’s renewable portfolio standard law. You can read our full comments, which address other major Connecticut energy issues as well, here.

It’s not too late for the New England states to get smart about new imports and make sure that new imports only happen, if at all, in cost-effective ways that allow alternative power sources and companies to compete on a level playing field, respect local communities, and provide meaningful economic and environmental benefits, accounted for in fair and open processes. Committing New England residents and businesses to pay above-market prices for Canadian hydropower isn’t one of them.

* from Northern Pass’s website, accessed today:

Providing economic clean energy—without a government subsidy

This will be one of the few—if not the only—renewable energy projects in the region that does not need a government subsidy to move forward. Hydro-Québec can generate and sell the power to us at prices that will compete with the average market prices that are being set today by fossil fuel power plants.

The New Hampshire legislature is being asked to impose a moratorium on wind power projects in the Granite State. In written testimony, CLF and other environmental groups, like the Nature Conservancy, are urging the legislature to reject this proposal. Our position is simple and clear – the wind siting process in New Hampshire may not be perfect but slamming on the brakes with regard to the largest and most immediately available source of truly zero-emissions electrical power available to New Hampshire and New England would be a mistake. Indeed, it would be contrary to New Hampshire’s codified Renewable Portfolio Standard requirements, which seek to increase the amount of wind energy in New England.

CLF, and its allies, are strongly on the record favoring refinement of the New Hampshire energy facility “site evaluation” process, including in joint written testimony filed last week. All major energy projects sited in New Hampshire should be subject to a meaningful, open, and rigorous public review and should directly benefit the state, and wind projects that generate property taxes and lower emissions, if properly sited and planned, will do that. Transmission line projects like Northern Pass should be held to the same standard.

As we increasingly understand the peril our planet and welfare are facing, and the unconscionable harm being imposed on people worldwide by human-induced climate change, we must advance policies and “real projects” to reduce emissions in accordance with the climate and energy goals dictated by science: near complete decarbonization of our energy system. Increasing renewable generating capacity is a core element of decarbonizing, and we should not be delaying projects that help achieve that goal to the benefit of communities and the environment.

Lempster Wind Power Project seen from Pillsbury State Park (Washington, NH)

photo courtesy of Shannon Henry @ flickr.com

The past few weeks have not been kind to Vermont Yankee or its owners. Investment analysts continue to raise doubts about Yankee’s economic future. It is costing more to run the plant and its future looks bleak.

In Vermont, hearings began last week before the Public Service Board on whether state approval should be granted. Entergy’s four – that’s right, four – law firms are packing the hearing room, but the plethora of high-priced lawyers are having a hard time showing that Vermont will be better off to keep the plant running. Much of their time is spent raising objections and claiming nearly every matter is out of bounds, and cannot be considered by the Board.

The Board must decide if continued operation is in Vermont’s best interests. Matters of radiological safety cannot be considered by the state board, but matters of economics, power supply and the environment are fair game.

During the first week of hearings, Vermont Yankee’s witnesses were on the stand. It was an impressive collection of corporate executives, economists, professors and power professionals. Their testimony had been previously submitted in writing. The hearings allowed the Board and the parties to ask questions.

Just like the tired old plant, the questions revealed real cracks in Vermont Yankee’s claims. One of Entergy’s top executives acknowledged “very serious issues” regarding “misinformation” about the existence of underground pipes at the plant in 2010. He also acknowledged a number of past incidents where penalties had been imposed for failing to follow required rules.

On power supply, the plant is not needed for reliability. The lights will still stay on without Vermont Yankee. There is an excess of power available in New England and the growth in renewables alone over the next decade is greater than the total output of Vermont Yankee.

When asked about environmental problems at the plant, Entergy’s executive confessed he is not an expert on environmental law noting he took that class “Pass/Fail” in law school. Too bad. Vermont deserves better.

Hearings continue February 19 at the Vermont Public Service Board, and are expected to finish February 25. The Board has asked for additional Entergy witnesses to explain how it has complied with prior commitments and also about events that happened in 2010. The State of Vermont, Conservation Law Foundation and the other parties will then make available their witnesses who will answer questions about power supply, the environment and economics.

I was on television the other night talking about the impact of sea level rise and storms on Boston and how the impacts of global warming mean that coastal cities like Boston face very real threats. During that interview, I found myself comparing the process of adapting to a changed climate to finding out the house is on fire and grabbing the cat and the kids and getting out – steps that should be followed by calling the Fire Department in order to save the rest of the house and neighborhood.

The climate equivalent of calling the Fire Department is reducing carbon emissions to head off even worse global warming and the wide gamut of effects that we are feeling and will feel from that phenomenon. On the national level, our problem is that Congress is not sure what kind of Fire Department we should have – and in fact a powerful contingent of folks in Congress refuse to believe in the existence of fire.

But here in the upper right hand corner of the U.S., the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, our state governments have been rolling the big red truck out of the garage and taking action to address the greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, a key source of this pollution causing global warming, by capping carbon emissions through the program known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (“RGGI”).

Today, February 7, those states (including the New England states of Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Connecticut) announced an agreement  to strengthen that cap on carbon  from 165 million tons down to 91 million tons (2012 levels).

This step, along with associated refinements to the RGGI program, is an important step toward meeting the climate imperative of an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, but we temper our applause by clearly noting that more sweeping action will be needed to get there. Listen to the wise words of Jonathan Peress, my colleague and our lead advocate on RGGI from our official release marking this announcement:

“This is a very meaningful step in the evolution of RGGI and a powerful example of how markets can drive solutions to climate change,” said N. Jonathan Peress, VP and director of CLF’s Clean Energy and Climate Change program. “Over the past four years, the RGGI program has proven that putting a price on carbon emissions and using the revenues to expand energy efficiency and clean energy as part of our mix is a formula that works. The program refinements announced today will further accelerate the ongoing transition away from dirty and inefficient fossil fuel power plants to meet our energy needs. Once again, the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states have demonstrated a path forward for others areas of the country.”

RGGI, the nation’s first market-based cap and trade program requires power plants to hold permits, known as “allowances,” for each ton of CO₂ they release into the atmosphere. Revenue from the sale of these allowances is reinvested in energy efficiency programs that reduce costs for businesses and make the states more competitive.

Peress continued, “We applaud the New England states for supporting and strengthening RGGI as an important tool in their toolkits for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and advancing a clean energy economy. The RGGI program has proven that carbon cap-and-trade programs can reduce carbon pollution while contributing to economic growth and prosperity. However, state leaders still have much to do to meet the emissions reductions levels dictated by science and our understanding of what it will take for our region to thrive in the face of climate change. Today’s action to strengthen the regional electric power plant cap-and-trade program is a step in the right direction, but we have a long way to go.”

The new cap level locks in emission reductions achieved to date, and continues to drive additional reductions through 2020. Since it was launched in 2009, economic experts say the increased energy efficiency that RGGI is driving has been generating greater rates of economic growth in each participating state.