Keeping the lights on shouldn’t be this difficult. The response by Entergy to the outage at the Super Bowl is very reminiscent of the responses by Entergy to the many problems at its Vermont Yankee nuclear plant. It boils down to a piece of equipment failed and the power went out. A repeated problem at Vermont Yankee has been equipment failures – from cooling tower collapses to leaking pipes.

Sure problems happen, but c’mon. Enough already. The problem is that the same company that can’t keep the lights on for the Super Bowl is also challenged to keep its nuclear fleet running smoothly.

Even without news of the Super Bowl outage, UBS issued another report  about the shaky financial future of Vermont Yankee. The report states:

“We continue to believe Entergy is likely to decommission at least one of its units, such as Vermont Yankee, in 2013. We anticipate the process of decommissioning will become of greater importance to Entergy shareholders, as concerns around shareholder-financed contributions to decommissioning funds continue to garner concern.”

The financial outlook looks bleak. Meanwhile, next week hearings begin at the Vermont Public Service Board about Vermont Yankee’s future. Entergy has money to keep four law firms employed working on the case. That money would be better spent closing the plant and cleaning up the site.

Vermont keeps working on better ways for people and goods to get where they need to go. The threats from climate change and the high cost of maintaining our travel ways mean we need to be smarter and greener.

In 2011 Vermont’s Governor Peter Shumlin announced that the Circ Highway – an expensive, polluting and ill-conceived highway project outside Burlington — would not be built as planned. In its place a Task Force would work on solutions that won’t bust the budget or foul our air and water.

Over the past year a good part of that work looked at targeted improvements in the immediate Circ area. The result is a study of the network . With this are recommendations that were just adopted by the Task Force to move forward with making improvements to some existing roadways in and around Williston.

A public meeting will be held on Tuesday, February 5, 2013 from 7:30 – 9:00 PM at Williston Town Hall, with a presentation of the findings of the study and the recommendations. The meeting is hosted by the Williston Planning Commission. Refreshments will be served.

CLF has been mostly pleased with this work and encouraged that new and more effective solutions are moving forward. As we noted in comments to the group, a bigger role for transit and roundabouts could cut costs and pollution further.

Come learn about new projects and let the transportation officials working on these projects know what you think.

photo courtesy of someones.life @ flickr.com

I joined with residents of Vermont’s Northeast Kingdom today and fellow environmental colleagues to protect Vermont from the devastation of tar sands oil.

We filed a legal action to ensure Vermonters have a say over any proposal to move tar sands through Vermont. See press release here.

The request asks that the increasingly imminent proposal to move tar sands through an existing Northeast Kingdom pipeline be subject to state land use (Act 250) review. See request here.

Tar sands oil poses unique risks to the many natural treasures of the Northeast Kingdom and also imposes extreme climate change risks.

Tar sands oil is a gritty tar-like substance that produces far more emissions than conventional oil. The vastness of the tar sands reserves in Western Canada means that using tar sands oil delays efforts to move towards cleaner energy supplies, and sends us backwards on climate change.

As James Hansen, a leading climate scientist has said, the exploitation of tar sands on mass will be, “game over” for the climate.

Already there are requests to move tar sands east from Alberta to Montreal. The only realistic way to move it beyond Montreal to the deep ports it needs for transportation is through the Portland Montreal Pipeline which passes through Vermont.

There has already been one spill in this old pipeline in Vermont. A spill of tar sands oil – which is much harder to clean up – would be devastating.

Our filing requests that any plans to use the pipeline for tar sands oil be reviewed though Vermont’s land use development law – Act 250 – to protect our land, water and air resources threatened by this dirty fuel .

Vermont is poised to take a big bite out of the high cost and pollution of heating our homes and businesses. Slashing a full one-quarter of both lies within our reach.

Over the past decade, the cost Vermonters pay for staying warm has more than doubled. This strains our pocketbooks, our environment, our health and our security. Watching our dollars go up in smoke drains our economy.

What can we do? Building on the enormous success of our electric efficiency efforts, we can improve the heating efficiency of our homes and businesses in a similar manner. While some efforts have begun, most of the savings opportunity remains on the table. Throughout Vermont, heating efficiency has saved the average homeowner about $1,000 a year.  (See a recent editorial here).

A new report of Vermont’s Thermal Efficiency Task Force provides a strong roadmap for jumpstarting heating efficiency and renewable heat for our homes and businesses. The Task Force recommendations show how Vermont can stretch its heating dollars farther and provide over $1.4 billion in direct savings. That’s $1.4 billion that is not going up in smoke, literally leaking out of our homes and businesses.

Affordable heat means lowering bills. Every year Vermont struggles to fund low income heating assistance (LIHEAP). With affordable heat, Vermont can reduce the funds needed and can use LIHEAP dollars to help more Vermonters. Cutting fuel use by one-quarter means that for every four homes that are weatherized, help is available for one additional family.

Affordable heat reduces pollution. Every gallon of fossil fuel we don’t burn means less pollution. Whether we are adding solar to our roofs or insulating/weatherizing our homes we leave a lasting positive legacy for our children by taking seriously our responsibility to tackle climate change and reduce pollution.

The long and short of it is that Vermont — and Vermonters — can’t afford to keep wasting energy, wasting money and wasting clean air. Vermont’s commitment to affordable heat is our ticket to more comfortable homes and businesses, and a thriving and affordable clean energy economy.

photo courtesy of topher76@flickr.com

This past week has shown Vermont first-hand the high cost of nuclear power. Hosting a plant in your state is clearly a high-stakes bargain.

Vermont went to Court in Manhattan this week before a three judge panel at the United States Court of Appeals. (Read more here and here). It had fifteen minutes for its lawyer to explain to the judges why the decision of the District Court blocking the actions of the Vermont Legislature should be reversed. A tough task.

With clarity and nimbleness, Vermont proved it was up to the task. Its lawyer, Attorney David Frederick, an experienced appellate lawyer who argued a case last week before the United States Supreme Court, explained that Vermont has every right to determine Vermont Yankee’s fate. And doing so does not impinge on the federal government’s oversight of radiological issues.

In a nutshell, there were three points.

First the United States Supreme Court case from 1983 that let stand a California law enacting a moratorium on nuclear plants would allow the Vermont law. If a state can ban all nuclear plants, it can certainly allow the Legislature to determine the fate of one plant.

Second, the lease on Vermont Yankee expired and like a landlord, Vermont can simply refuse to renew the lease. Period. Any tenant knows this. Vermont is hosting this plant and can say it wants the property used for another purpose.

Third, Vermont has huge skin in the game and economic exposure from Vermont Yankee. If Entergy, the owner of Vermont Yankee, goes bankrupt or simply chooses to walk away, Vermonters are left holding the bag for what Conservation Law Foundation has described as the nuclear equivalent of junk car in its backyard. This possibility is more likely following recent reports that Vermont Yankee is not pulling its weight and that Entergy would be better off closing the plant.

The stakes are high. Apart from hosting this plant, Entergy is seeking to recoup over $4 million in legal fees, and now has four law firms working to push every legal angle possible. Times change. When Vermont first approved the Vermont Yankee facility in the 1970s, there was a hearing for three days before the Vermont Public Service Board. Clearly nuclear power and hosting plants is more expensive and time consuming than ever.

Vermont is right to begin extracting itself from this nuclear legacy. Unfortunately, that is proving to be not so easy.

Photo courtesy of Andy Hares @ flickr.com

The financial world is waking up to what a drag Vermont Yankee really is. The tired, old and leaking nuclear plant in Vermont is not carrying its weight. Financial analysts report that Vermont Yankee is economically vulnerable and a retirement announcement would boost stock prices for its parent, Entergy.

You can read the UBS Investment Research report “Re-assessing Cash Flows from the Nukes” here. It states:

“Notably, we believe both its NY Fitzpatrick and Vermont Yankee plants are at risk of retirement given their small size; while potentially negative to sentiment, an announcement to retire the units would likely drive positive FCF revisions.”

Clearly it is past time to close this plant.

Analysts today dropped the projected price target for Entergy’s stock. They see high debt and little cash coming in. Not good news for any investment.

It is good the financial world is waking up to what Vermonters have known for years. Vermont Yankee is not a good deal. It hasn’t been for years. It is expensive and financially risky. Conservation Law Foundation submitted testimony to the Public Service Board on the lousy economics of allowing Vermont Yankee to continue to operate. It does not have enough money for decommissioning, low energy prices mean it is not making money and any problems would saddle Vermont with big problems. You can read CLF’s testimony here.

These are not problems we need. Nuclear power was once touted as too cheap to meter. That has never been true. Now it is too expensive to even keep operating. Thank goodness financial markets are waking up to this fact.

For decades Conservation Law Foundation has pushed for more energy efficiency, which continues to be the lowest cost, cleanest and most reliable way to meet power needs. More energy efficiency means fewer dirty coal plants, fewer monstrous transmission lines, and more money in our pockets. We all win.

The operators of the New England Power grid, the ISO-New England, released their energy-efficiency forecast. The news is pretty remarkable.  It shows the real effect of our commitment to energy efficiency. You can read the report here.

In states like Vermont, efficiency will more than offset expected growth and allow older and dirtier supplies to step aside.

By comparison New Hampshire, which has not invested as much in efficiency, continues to grow its power use and continues to pay too much for ever more polluting power supplies.

In the words of the ISO New England, the energy efficiency forecast shows the states’ investment in energy efficiency is having a significant impact on electric energy consumption and peak demand. About $260 million in transmission expenses have already been deferred for New England customers. (p.23).

That’s $260 million in our pockets.

What’s also important is that these are very conservative numbers: if states like Massachusetts and Rhode Island meet their goals for helping customers to save energy and money the reductions in energy use will exceed what the ISO is presenting.

This report shows that investments in electricity efficiency are really paying off – we need to apply the lessons from that sector to other areas, like ensuring we use natural gas and oil very efficiently as well, saving customers money while reducing pollution and fuel imports.

More savings are available. Some states are not making as large investments in energy efficiency as others. New Hampshire for example is causing its citizens to experience unnecessarily high costs.

It is good to see the bright payoff from what are only the beginnings of our efficiency investments.

As the exuberance for “cheap, domestic” natural gas has heightened, so has pressure to build new pipelines and power plants.  Often lost in the frenzy, however, is the sobering reality that our existing natural gas infrastructure is in need of some serious care and attention.  A recent study highlighted the fact that the pipelines that deliver gas to our homes and businesses are riddled with thousands of leaks.  A large number of those leaks can be blamed on a system that still includes significant amounts of cast iron–some of which dates back to the 1830s.

Explosions in Philadelphia and Allentown, Pennsylvania in 2011 as well as a 2009 explosion in Gloucester, MA were traced to aging cast iron.  Coupled with the massive San Bruno explosion, the issue spurred the U.S. Department of Transportation to issue a “Call to Action” urging regulators and pipeline operators to accelerate the repair and replacement of high risk pipe.  Given this sense of urgency, the estimated timelines for replacement seem interminably long:

•  81% of the remaining cast iron is buried in only 10 states:

• Of these states, seven have implemented programs with deadlines for complete replacement:

• New Jersey – 2035; New York – 2090; Pennsylvania – 2111; Michigan – 2040; Illinois – 2031; Alabama – 2040; Connecticut – 2080; Missouri – 2059.

Really? Decades to get the job done, at best?  And about a century to fully “modernize” pipes in some states? Sad, but true.

Though public safety is the primary driver behind pipe replacement and repair, whether the natural gas industry ultimately delivers on its claims for being less damaging to the climate than oil or coal depends on how well natural gas infrastructure addresses leaks.  In addition, those who are clamoring to blindly forge ahead expanding new natural gas infrastructure before we’ve fully assessed the condition of our current system would do well to remember the lessons that New England has already learned so well about the financial and environmental benefits of looking to efficiency first.  Not only is investment in new pipelines and power plants expensive, but it comes with serious and lasting environmental consequences whose costs are too often discounted or ignored.  Why not maximize opportunities for operating the existing natural gas system more efficiently first, before building (and paying for) more?

Despite the fact that we know natural gas prices are predictably volatile, several states have begun to take action to lock energy customers into long-term commitments to buy natural gas-fired power, thus locking them into paying for the fuel even when the price spikes.  For example, here in Massachusetts, one legislator has championed the idea of providing 10-20 year long term contracts for a new natural gas plant.  The problem with signing a long-term contract for electricity from gas is that while customers benefit when the cost of gas is low, they suffer when the price spikes, as it inevitably does.  That’s notably different from long-term contracts for renewable energy which typically have a guaranteed, fixed price.

Proposals for new massive interstate pipelines are in the works as well.  Spectra, a Houston-based natural gas pipeline company is proposing a $500 million expansion for Massachusetts. And all the lines on the map for proposed expansions of pipeline leading from the Marcellus Shale to the Northeast rival the Griswold Family Christmas lights display.

Before we spend billions on new infrastructure chasing the next gold rush, we must repair and rebuild our existing infrastructure and examine the tried and true tool of efficiency.   A recent study on the potential for natural gas efficiency in Massachusetts showed that efficiency could reduce winter electric demand enough to support the increased use of gas on the system without building new infrastructure:

From Jonathan Peress's presentation at the Restructuring Roundtable on June 15, 2012

But there is a risk that regulators will not fully take these very real benefits into account as they review and approve the latest energy efficiency plans.  Indeed, traditional energy efficiency naysayers are using the low price of gas as an excuse to call for reduced investment in efficiency.

The bottom line is that natural gas does have a role in our energy future, but it  is one that must be carefully managed and minimized over time if we are to have any hope of averting climate catastrophe.  In the meantime, before we jump to expand new natural gas infrastructure, we need to look closely at what we already have in the ground and apply the lessons we’ve learned about efficiency.

photo courtesy of strikkelist@flickr.com

Regulators issued another strong rebuke to the owners of Vermont Yankee. The Vermont Public Service Board strongly rejected Entergy’s requests to change prior orders. Entergy continues to operate in defiance of Vermont law. Patience with this sort of behavior is wearing thin.  Read the decision here.

Entergy asked to change orders so that it would have authority to operate past March 21, 2012. The Board strongly rejected that request. As the Board’s conclusion states:

For the reasons set out above, the Board denies Entergy VY’s motion to amend Condition 8 of the Sale Order, which prohibited operation of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station after March 21, 2012, without Board approval and conditions in the Dry Fuel Storage Order and CPG that limit the amount of spent nuclear fuel that Entergy VY may store at the Vernon site to amounts generated from operation up to March 21, 2012.

Entergy knew and agreed to the commitment not to operate after March 2012 and had ample time to challenge or seek amendment earlier. Entergy didn’t.

Instead, Entergy chose to defy the Board’s orders, walk away from its commitments, thumb its nose at Vermont and just continue to operate. It then asked the Board to change the prior orders, claiming hardship and that being held to its prior commitments was somehow unforeseeable.

The Board roundly rejected each of Entergy’s claims. Any hardship is Entergy’s own making based on its own tactical decisions, and does not justify changing the rules after the fact.

Entergy’s in a very tight box. It cannot prove to the Board that it is a trustworthy operator when at the same time it is operating in bold defiance of the same Board’s orders.