Sanders, Shumlin & Solar

[Chris Santee]

Senate Panel Passes Solar Bill 
WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 – The Senate energy committee today passed and sent to the full Senate a bill by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.) to lower the cost of solar power and put the United States on track to install 10 million solar systems on homes and businesses by 2020.

The committee voted 13 to 8 in favor of the bill by Sanders and Boozman, the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Green Jobs and New Economy Subcommittee. Sen. Jeff Bingaman, the chairman of the full Energy and Natural Resources Committee, cosponsored their bill.

“This legislation will make it more affordable for families and businesses to install solar, by helping communities reduce the costs associated with solar energy permitting," Sanders said. "As we lower the cost of solar energy and increase our use of solar, we can create hundreds of thousands of good-paying manufacturing and installation jobs in this country. This bill also sets strong targets for American solar energy production, to ensure we compete vigorously with China and Europe for solar energy jobs."

Boozman said the goal is to reduce unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles to American-made solar energy. “Our country benefits by using our domestic energy resources, including the expanded use of renewables, such as solar and wind energy.  A simplified permitting process will make solar energy more affordable.  I am especially pleased that our bill is fully offset and uses existing authorized spending to spur improvements in solar permitting and encourage the deployment of solar energy systems.”

The 10 Million Solar Roofs Act of 2011 would establish a goal of powering 10 million homes and businesses with solar energy by 2020. The measure also would incorporate a Department of Energy initiative called SunShot to make solar more competitive with conventional energy technologies. The bill would provide grants to communities to help them make their solar energy permitting process less costly and more efficient, and would recognize and reward communities that have adopted common policies on solar permits. 

A solar industry report said obstacles to acquiring local permits add up to $2,500 to the cost of a typical residential solar installation. The Department of Energy also identified local permitting costs as an obstacle to further lowering solar energy costs that declined by 60 percent since 1995.

Supporters of The Ten Million Solar Roofs bill include the Solar Energy Industries Association, the National League of Cities, and the League of Conservation Voters.

[Chris Santee]

FINAL COMPREHENSIVE ENERGY PLAN RELEASED
MONTPELIER, VT – Gov. Peter Shumlin, Public Service Commissioner Elizabeth Miller and other administration officials today released the final Comprehensive Energy Plan, which recommends that Vermont strive to obtain 90 percent of our total energy from renewable sources by 2050, largely eliminating Vermont’s reliance on fossil fuels by mid-century.

“Vermont needs to move forward to protect our environment, gain greater energy independence, and drive innovation and jobs in the energy sectors. This Plan puts us on that path,” Gov. Shumlin said. “I am proud of the incredible work put in by the many agencies involved and the thousands of citizens who took the time to participate in shaping the ideas and actions that are included.”

The Plan calls for enhanced efficiency, and greater use of clean, renewable sources for electricity, heating and transportation to meet this goal.  The Plan also recognizes that Vermont must pursue its goals responsibly, ensuring overall energy costs for our businesses and residents remain regionally competitive.

“We worked hard both at the Department of Public Service and in other state agencies and departments to create a robust public engagement process and to draft a Comprehensive Energy Plan that responds to Vermonters’ desire to increase usage of renewable energy for the benefit of our environment, our economy, and our long-term energy security,” said Elizabeth Miller, Commissioner of Public Service.

The Plan explains that, across all fuel sectors, Vermont currently utilizes about a quarter renewable energy for its needs.  Moving from nearly a quarter renewable energy now to nearly fossil-fuel free by 2050 will:

· Foster job growth, economic security and independence by creating jobs in efficiency and local renewable energy projects; by keeping our dollars closer to home; and by cutting our dependence on dirty price-volatile fossil fuels.

· Safeguard our environmental legacy by reducing our contribution to global climate change and leading by example in the fight to keep our planet safe and habitable for generations to come.

· Keep Vermonters’ dollar instate, drive in-state innovation and job creation by showing that investments in efficiency and renewable energy, which help our environment and energy independence, also help our economy.

· Increase community involvement and investment by engaging Vermonters in our energy choices.

This marks the first Vermont Comprehensive Energy Plan since the late 1990s. The Plan covers electricity, heating and process fuels, and energy in transportation and land use decisions.

The Department of Public Service, charged by statute to create a statewide Plan, led a multi-agency initiative that involved robust public outreach and garnered over 9,000 comments from Vermonters on a variety of energy issues facing the state. 

Vermont currently obtains almost a quarter of its energy from renewable sources, due in large part to the electric portfolio, which is comprised of nearly 50 percent renewable sources.  Great progress has been made in electric efficiency, keeping Vermont’s electric demand down. 

However, comparatively little progress has been made on obtaining transportation and heating from renewable sources. The Plan calls for greater progress in these sectors to benefit Vermont’s environment, comfort, and affordability.   

The Department of Public Service is an agency within the executive branch of Vermont state government. Its charge is to represent the public interest in matters regarding energy, telecommunications, water and wastewater.  The Department is also charged by statute with statewide energy and telecommunications planning.

[Chris Santee]

State energy plan bad for economy
By Linda Kirker
As a former legislator, I understand that any type of Vermont energy policy must play a dual role: it must provide a path to developing clean and environmentally-friendly power sources, while at the same time promote economic development throughout our state. The law says so. And yet for some reason our state’s economy is being asked to take a back seat to a statewide energy plan that does not adequately take economic development into account.

Besides producing nearly zero carbon emissions, Vermont Yankee is the single biggest instate generator of electricity, provides about 1000 good jobs, millions in state and local taxes, and keeps our power bills as low as possible. That’s why it is so unfortunate to see so many people in Montpelier trying to shut down the plant, even while poll numbers show Vermonters elsewhere want it to stay open.

When the Senate voted to shut down Vermont Yankee, the anti-nuclear activists waved their big puppets and cheered. These people failed to address the real problem: where, specifically, will Vermont get enough locally-made, low-cost, virtually zero-carbon electricity? Stop playing with your puppets and answer that, please.

Will the hundreds of megawatts we need come from biomass power? Doubtful, as a state study group this month recommended burning wood for heat but not for electricity. How about in-state hydroelectric production? Not likely, as Vermont’s waterfalls are already pretty much maxed out. Wind? That, too, is doubtful, given that Gov. Shumlin’s Windham County replacement in the Senate is pushing to pass a law to restrict wind power – a move that acknowledges widespread dissatisfaction with the Lowell project and others. What about cow-power, solar or reducing overall demand and improving energy efficiency? Again, all of these options are great in theory, but implementing them will take years. We don’t have that kind of time if the state is intent on shutting down our main energy source next year.

Let’s also acknowledge the other elephant in the room: power costs. Renewable power is incredibly expensive to develop and generate, especially in the short-term. Those costs will trickle down to electric customers, like you and me, who will be forced to bear the burden of paying higher rates to power our homes and businesses. I know I definitely don’t want to pay unnecessarily high electric rates, and if I wasn’t retired, I would also be worried about losing my job in this tight economy because my employer’s overall operating costs would increase as a result of higher power bills. In a business, and in a home budget, the money for electricity has to come from somewhere, and these days there just isn’t much “discretionary money” anywhere.

At this time, the only “cheap” power that is readily available for Vermont to tap into is natural gas from New England and Canada. But gas, just like oil, is a volatile commodity, rising and falling due to supply, demand, and other factors. Without the existence of power generated at nuclear power’s steady, contracted rates, we consumers will be at the market’s mercy. And even if the market price is low, we can kiss a fond goodbye to all of those jobs and taxes, as well as Vermont Yankee’s high-quality health benefits that have been supporting the state’s medical system.

Vermont’s energy planners are tossing away real, existing, good jobs, and real, existing, low-cost power, for a future based on predictions and hypothetical situations. This needs to stop. Vermont must allow Vermont Yankee to stay open and our state legislators must obey the law requiring that all energy development be good for the economy – i.e. market-based, not highly subsidized, electricity. Only then will we be headed back on the right track.

(Linda Kirker of Georgia is a former member of the Vermont Legislature. She hosts “Sound Off”, a weekly program on Northwest Access TV in Franklin County.

[msm]

Chris,

Thanks for posting.  Interesting perspectives.    Since I no longer live in the Green Mountain state,  I won't comment. 


Mike

[Loctavious]

I'm not looking forward to higher energy prices that's for sure.  I can see the benefits of Nuclear power in terms of cost versus yield.

the points of view of the second poster, does not even ackowledge the potential disaster of nuclear energy.  If there was anything like what happened in Japan - it DOES need to be considered that our State and its green Reputation would be tarnished for over hundreds of years.  that area of Vt would be unihabitable - and thus off limits for resources economic cultivation for a long time.  I'm not sure playing the odds is the best approach though.... i don't live there and the environmental effects wouldn't immediately harm me.... so that's not my point to argue.

What i do have a problem with is the way the current organization has run Yankee.  It cannot be debated that there's been false pretense and minimization of violations and vital information relay.  What's happened in the last few years IS the byproduct of age, but more than that - negligent upkeep.  Just like taking care of your house - if you don't clean the gutters and slap some paint on it on regular basis - it'll get run down and look shabby.  If you don't get the furnace serviced regularly - it'll break down.  If you don't replace worn parts - things break.  Thus Entergy hasn't maintained the plant as well as they could have- and crap happens ( and gives folks something to worry about).

[mkr]

Chris, thanks for posting Linda's article. 

Besides the misinformation about the use of underground piping; which I agree was wrong; VY is a solid business.  The tritium media hype was way overblown. Also, don't get all your information from the media...

As for comparing Japan with VT VY.  I do not foresee a sunami in our future and if we do and it makes it to Vernon, VT, we will have much to be worried about.

When the electricity bills start to skyrocket because of VY not providing affordable electricity for VT, and people start to complain; those so against it.  I suggest you invest your $40,000+ dollars you must have kicking around to set up your solar power for your home, oh minus the reduction in the cost of $2,500 to just get a permit to do so.

[Loctavious]

I guess gambling with life and the environment.... ain't no big deal eh.... especially if the odds of soemthign going wrogn are so low right?

Would you consider Solar if it was more affordable mkr? 

[mkr]

I do value life and the environment Loctavious; I know that may seem hard to swallow since I am in favor of nuclear power and all. Life is a gamble my friend and if the risk is real low, I am going to have to trust that if it did happen, then it was meant to be then.

I mean, I could get in a plane crash if I fly on a trip, the risk is low, so should I just not fly now?  Even though it is so much cheaper than to drive to say from VT to California. I guess I should not fly; especially if the odds of something going wrong are so low right? You get where I am going with my thinking. Everything has a risk, weighing out the possibilities are where I make my choice over risk/value.

As for affordable solar power; sure I would be interested as long it did not require tax payers to pay for my tax break, or discount, or any other tax or deduction.  Like anything, I need to see pay back in a reasonable time and make it worth my investment.  At this time, not even close unfortunately.

[Loctavious]

It being Vermont - solar wouldn't mean you'd be totally off the grid, but in the summer perhaps you could be, even be paid for your investment.  One less dependance on the system isn't a bad thing now is it? 

The difference between your choice to fly or not to and the choice of Nuclear Power - has some differences.  If your plane goes down - then YOU die - and anyone else on the plane - and maybe some folsk on the ground where it hits.  So we're talking 200-400 people tops ( if it hits a stadium then that woudl really suck and throw a monkey wrench in my argument).  then you've got the clean-up of the area, the amount of time that area cannot be economically feasable ( time of investigation, to demolish and, clean-up toxic fuel contamination, and rebuild and resell).
that will cost the local economy and communities x amount of hardship - grief of loss of human life/everyday life, environment for sure. 

Now consider a meltdown... and the potential handling of it.  We're talking exponentially greater times the above-mentioned results - and on folks who were just living life.  The counter to that point is that "they chose to live here or near the plant" And the counter to that is what about the folks a county or two over - OR a state or two over who didn't bargain for the fallout beign swept into their backyard by the weather?   what about the contaminated river life or sea life?

there's more to consider than our own well-being.  Sooner or later, Humans will need to start thinking of each other on a greater level.... start thinking about what it means to live and what our rights should truly be and why ours should out weigh anyone elses.

I certainly am not rich and any increase in fuel or power costs will hurt my family and friends.  I don't profess to know the solutions - I DO know that the infighting, and bipartisan system we have is tired and old - and i don't think the stalemates and ineffectiveness today - caused by both sides opposing idealogies ISN'T what the Dudes who started this country had in mind back then.  We need some real help as a species - a wake-up call.

I know - so uncaptialistic right?  so Liberal?  so unamerican? 

[mkr]

We can definitely agree to disagree Loctavious as you are always a respectful person to have a discussion with.  I can understand your point of view respectfully as I am sure you can understand I am not a selfish person who thinks only of my best interest.  Even us on the other side of the table are charitable, caring, and do think of others and help them on a regular basis.

We will all be in trouble financially with an energy increase and many people in VT will be in jeporady, lose jobs, or can't afford to live in their home. Businesses will rise their prices for goods, and sadly may go out of business.

I can say that we DO agree that our system is broken and definitely not what our fore fathers had in mind.

Happy Holidays to you and yours!

[David Shea]

High power prices in Vermont will ultimately turn Vermont into a ghost town.  The only people that will be left are those that are oblivious and those who are wealthy.

[Loctavious]

An elitest State?  i thought that was New Hampshire? 

Indeed mkr - happy holidays - we can be thankful for now that we have the energy prices we do - and thus be able to stay warm with lights on.

[Norton]

Besides producing nearly zero carbon emissions, Vermont Yankee is the single biggest instate generator of electricity, provides about 1000 good jobs, millions in state and local taxes, and keeps our power bills as low as possible.

The carbon emissions are not "nearly zero", mainly because of the uranium mining.

Vermont Yankee employs about 600 people.  Fewer than 300 of them live in Vermont.  Any power generation that replaces it will also involve jobs.

The price that VY has offered the state is a little more than $.06 per KWH.  That's almost exactly the same price as the spot market.  In other words, the same as several other available sources.

it is so unfortunate to see so many people in Montpelier trying to shut down the plant, even while poll numbers show Vermonters elsewhere want it to stay open.

Does anyone know what poll is being referred to?

  At this time, the only “cheap” power that is readily available for Vermont to tap into is natural gas from New England and Canada. But gas, just like oil, is a volatile commodity, rising and falling due to supply, demand, and other factors

Uranium, just like oil and gas, is a volatile commodity, rising and falling due to supply, demand, and other factors

Renewable power is incredibly expensive to develop and generate

Any idea how many tax dollars went into the government-sponsored development of nuclear technology?  Or how much nuclear power would cost if the owners of the plants had to carry liability insurance like all other businesses, rather than being held harmless for any possible disasters?  The federal government (in other words, the public) has agreed to carry all the costs associated with any major nuclear disaster. 

It's also very likely that tax dollars will be used for much (perhaps most) of the decomissioning costs, since the companies that own the plants have not been required to set aside sufficient funds for that.  Indeed, no one even knows what those costs will be, since no nuclear plant in the US has ever been fully decomissioned and cleaned up.  What is certain is that they will need to be cleaned up, and that it will be expensive.

Also, the feds (in other words, we) have agreed to shoulder all the costs associated with the disposal of the waste.  Again, the government has decided to pay for that with tax dollars rather than electric rates.  Nuclear power plants are not required to clean up their own mess, unlike virtually all other businesses.

Bottom line, the rates we pay for nuclear power are misleading because much of the current costs are buried in taxes (subsidized) rather than paid directly as an operating expense.   And no one knows what nuclear power really costs, because much of the cost (perhaps most of it) is in the future and unknown.  We aren’t paying those costs as we go.   We are passing them on to our grandchildren.

In a business, and in a home budget, the money for electricity has to come from somewhere

our state legislators must obey the law requiring that all energy development be good for the economy – i.e. market-based, not highly subsidized, electricity. Only then will we be headed back on the right track.

I totally agree