|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
By Andrew Langer
When it comes to energy affordability, 2024 may be the year Vermonters look back on as the straw that broke the camel’s back. Various policies introduced in the legislature will raise costs for Vermont families and businesses under the guise of protecting them from the harms of climate change. If elected officials really want to help the state’s most vulnerable residents, they should focus on keeping energy costs low and its supply abundant. Sadly, they continue to do the opposite.
Because of its unique natural environment, Vermont produces quite a lot of hydropower. According to the U.S. Energy Information Agency, 52% of the state’s utility-scale electricity generation comes from hydro. But despite its clean hydropower abundance, Vermont residents still consume more than three times the energy they produce. This means they are still heavily reliant on energy imports. They get a lot of hydro-based electricity from Canada, and they bring in natural gas and other fossil fuel products for home heating and transportation.
Since Vermont doesn’t produce much energy, its energy costs are higher than the national average. Its residents pay $.05 more for residential electricity per kilowatt hour than the average American does, and the rates they pay for commercial and industrial electricity are similarly high. States like New York and Massachusetts blocking natural gas pipeline development that could bring more energy to the region certainly isn’t helping this problem. But the unfortunate way that the government makes its approved utility monopolies operate.
The government allows the utilities to make a reasonable profit, but only if that profit comes from recouping capital improvement and new infrastructure project costs. In short: if they build it, they can raise your rates for it. That makes new forms of energy generation like wind and solar and the transmission lines they require much more attractive than, say, a more affordable natural gas plant that has a 30-year lifespan.
The federal government is also promoting this counterproductive business model by providing lavish tax credits and funding opportunities for the deployment of these so-called clean energy sources. There is nothing clean about solar panel and wind turbines, but I digress.
And yet, with all of this energy negativity in the backdrop, the state legislature is doubling down on failed, regressive policies that will exacerbate vulnerable Vermonters’ current problems.
Soon, members’ Clean Heat Standard era will go into effect, establishing an emissions credit scheme for fossil fuel-based heating delivery companies to pay into, which the state will then use to fund various pet energy transition projects.
The one immediate issue is that many residents pre-buy their winter heat fuel when costs are lower. But right now, heat fuel providers cannot say what those costs will be due to the uncertainty surrounding the law’s implementation date.
The longer-term issue, of course, is that this program is, for all intents and purposes, a tax on fuel delivery companies. And if their costs to operate go up, Vermont families’ costs will go up too. Nearly 60% of Vermont residents rely on fossil fuels for heat, and thanks to this policy, they’ll soon be paying more for it.
Next, we have the statehouse’s Renewable Energy Standard bill, which will require utilities to purchase 100% of their power from renewable energy sources by 2030. Again, Vermont is somewhat fortunate due to how much hydroelectricity production it produces on its own and its close proximity to Canadian clean hydro. But as more and more neighboring states enact similar requirements, the demand for renewable energy is going to increase. And as demand increases, as it almost always does, Vermont will likely find that there will only be so much renewable power to be found. The law’s provision that power be sourced from renewable sources built after 2010 will further strain supply options.
States like California and New York that have pursued these types of targets and mandates all have one thing in common: cost increases. This comparison is not a hypothetical. They’ve already done what Vermont now seeks to do and their residents pay more because of it.
Finally, there is perhaps the most misguided of them all — the Superfund clean-up bill. This legislation calls for large energy companies like Shell and Chevron to compensate the state of Vermont for the climate change damages the emissions from their products have allegedly wrought in the so-called Freedom and Unity State.
There are obvious mechanical issues with the legislation, not the least of which is that no one can prove that any emission from any company has contributed to some alleged harm. But on top of that, this legislation will almost certainly see Vermont drawn into a lengthy and expensive litigation process that, more likely than not, will increase taxes and result in the superfund penalty concept being ruled invalid. And if by some chance Vermont manages to recoup some of the penalty payment from the energy companies, it will have still made their operating costs go up, which, in turn, raising energy costs on the residents who will continue to rely on fossil fuels for years to come.
No one in Vermont thinks the legislature should ignore the health of our natural environment. It’s one of the things that makes the state so special. But members can support the environment in ways that don’t directly raise energy costs for. With the cost of food, housing, and retail goods up all around the region, the last thing Vermont needs is to add higher energy costs to the mix.
Legislators should consider these consumer impacts as they weigh whether they should — or shouldn’t — advance these bills and other energy-related measures.
Andrew Langer is the Director of the CPAC Foundation Center for Regulatory Freedom
Categories: Commentary, Uncategorized
Well, there was that moment long ago when Vince Illuzzi and Jim Douglas butted heads regarding the state taking over the hydro dams of the Connecticut River, back when it wouldn’t have cost very much at all to assume ownership. Thirty cents on a dollar, if I remember.
I realize there were serious issue concerning sediment deposited behind the various impoundments (an unknown unknown at the time), but it’s hard to think those dams couldn’t have provided a leg up on the current energy crisis the state has waltzed itself into, even with the expense of mitigation.
Hail destroys huge solar array in Texas, tornadoes destroy wind turbines in the midwest, hurricanes will destroy offshore wind turbines. Lloyd’s of London is saying, “The cost of Renewables’ insurance is going up, get used to it”.
Meanwhile in New England, which has had a wind and solar drought for the entire winter, Rep. Laura Sibilia, sponsor of 100% Renewable bill now on Governor’s desk, says, “The transition to carbon free electricity is unstoppable. We have to get on board. The cost of electricity is going to go up. Get used to it.”
Batteries are seen to play a major role in keeping the lights on in the zero carbon future. I asked ChatGPT (which is very pro-renewable) how much it would cost to power the ISO-NE grid with batteries for 12 hours. The answer, complete with calculations, $2.9 trillion!!!
On the other hand, the nuclear plant operators are saying, “We are operating at 95% capacity factor – regardless of the weather”. Batteries not included, or required.
On behalf of most of the citizens of the State of Vermont–any and all Vermont legislators who had a hand in the authorization for the closing and demolition of Vermont Yankee, should be charged will willful destruction of private property. There is no fix for stupidity and none of them has gotten any wiser, but I would bet that some, if not most, have gotten richer from their investments in fallible renewable energy investments now that Vermont Yankee is gone…
Good update on the stupidity, unreliability, and expense of the fantasy of renewables. Rep. Laura Sibilia, thinks she knows what is best for everyone, any person with that attitude is scary. If her ideas fail we will all have to move to someplace, and I will bet she will be long gone from here by then.
I want to see major weeks long blackouts. Its the only thing that will educate the wokes and commies to the fact that America, modern society cannot live on just renewables.
I remember reading 20 or so years ago that Vermont only taps 20% of its potential hydro energy generation. I have no reason not to believe that figure, which I’m sure was an approximation, but seems about right to me. The article continued and mentioned that the other 80% had been lost for various reasons, but that most of that hydro generation capability and infrastructure still exists, although much of it has fallen into disrepair. But still, the cost to retrofit, permit, and update the current infrastructure would be “chump change” compared the savings over time. And )obviously), none of this potential accounted for any new hydro construction.
So where’s the downside? Silt deposits? Well sure, but like everything else, silt removal is a cost of doing business in the hydro world, and not very expensive or disruptive. Even so, much of the silt backup problem can be solved by making existing dams Bottom Release.
And hydro in general? Cleanest energy around, at least until the gubmint releases aero-point technology, which they have no intention of doing at this point.
So why spend hundreds of trillions on this pie-in-the-sky fantasy of all wind and solar power by 2030, when a vastly less expensive alternative exists?
You and I both know the answer to that, don’t we?
A dam also creates a lake, and that is a draw for tourist and locals. Lakeside cottages, fishing, boating, camping, and a Currier and Ives postcard picture of ICE SKATING. That is Vermont, not miles of solar panels ruining the view of open fields and grazing livestock. There are only two options, dams and nuclear equals very very cheap exportable energy and a better life for me. Those solar fields are ugly, there has to be something going on other then the unreliable source of energy they produce. Somewhere, I suspect, there is a misappropriation of wealth. involved.
Here’s a guestion: Since all electric power resources are tied into a grid and tied together with computers, controlled and monitored digitally over the interwebs….what happens when part or all of the system is hacked? We have seen these incidents all ready. The ports are being attacked right now apparently (going off line and an obvious attack on the supply chain.)
A report released that 70% of US public water sources are not upgraded and wide open to cyber attacks.
Whether domestic or foreign cyber attacks on the grid, supply chain, or water resources, all the money spent on the equipment, supplies, and money laundering won’t turn the lights back if our enemy seizes control of the levers. Is there a plan for that or we’re just supposed to keep paying the wolves for our slaughter? I’ll wait.
This is a direct result of Vermonters (albeit they call themselves that but brought their urband addiction to convenience and gadgets, and their right to force their addictions -by law – down our throat) living beyond their means — its a matter of an old Vermont value called “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” and surely, Vermonters have always come up with, if leaving out the designer engineer and middleman, a way to live with what they HAVE, and not want someone else’s pile.
There are still some of left but we’re old and tired, and don’t speak lazy, or telling our neighbors how to live, and we want to stay here.
But your gadgets are bankrupting us…and squeezing me out.
Oh wait…that was the plan all along… landlocked and energyless (what is that flowy stuff that fills our valleys, and what are those tall things that provide shade, windbreaks, and warmth…what are they again? and what is the ambient temperature of our land 2 feet down???) that we are…
Oh pooh.
We did this to ourselves…because we allowed it. We coveted what others have (thank you internet), and then told we wanted it (thank you Edward Bernais and Sigmund Freud)…and forgot that:
Vermonters have always lived simply simply to live.
The Vermont Public Utilities Commission (PUC) squandered its access to virtually unlimited Hydro Quebec (HQ) electricity years ago. HQ has been selling Vermont power for years at between 6 and 7 cents per kwh. In fact, 30% of Vermont’s power comes from HQ as it is. And additional base load power comes from the Seabrook nuclear plant at a cost of just a little more than HQ power. So, why are Vermonters paying so much?
First, understand that Green Mountain Power, Vermont’s largest electricity supplier by far, is wholly owned by the same conglomerate that owns HQ. They own all of the hydro plants on the CT River too.
Second, while we’re being charged 19 cents per kwh, there are myriad other charges added in your electric bill.
– A Customer Charge @ $0.554 per kwh,
– An Energy Efficiency Charge @ $0.01115 per kwh,
– Current Energy/Major Storm Adjustor charges,
– An Extreme Storm Restoration Fund charge, and an
– Electric Assistance Program Fee.
In total, GMP is charging 24.5 cents per kwh. And power is available from HQ for less than 1/3rd the price.
WTF.
Well, for one thing, GMP is making tons of money on the inefficiency of wind and solar power. Not only does it charge about 17 cents per kwh for wind and solar, it earns Carbon Credits, curiously, for which it sets the value. And because public utility profits are regulated, capped to a fixed percentage of revenue, the more money GMP spends on providing power, the more money it’s allowed to earn.
So, who’s in charge of this nonsense?
Again, it’s the PUC. Three commissioners who are the most powerful appointees in Vermont’s government – never mind that they earn north of $150 thousand salaries and attractive benefit packages.
And then there are the NGO lobbyists. You know. Like VPIRG (Vermont Public Interest Research Group). Two of its top people lobbied for hefty government subsidies for solar power (paid for by the various fees included in your electric bill). And then they started the SunCommon solar company, grew the company in no small part because of those subsidies, and then sold it for $40 Million.
Are you starting to see how this works? But what about the PUC watching out for Vermont energy consumers?
Well, the longest standing commissioner, one Margaret Cheney, who was appointed with little if any pragmatic experience in energy management, happens to be the wife of non-other than our esteemed Senator, Peter Welch. And they’ve already been criticized for, how shall I say it – insider trading. Senator Welch accepted campaign contributions from one of the companies his wife, as a PUC commissioner, was regulating.
Bottom line: Vermont’s energy policies, as Rob Roper continues to point out, are a mess. State management is corrupt. And if a purely free market energy policy were in place, our electric bills could be cut in half.
And please: don’t cite Global Climate Change – the motivating scam that started this whole thing decades ago. Is the planet getting warmer? Yes. It’s been getting warmer since the last ice age 10,000+ years ago. But the culprit isn’t CO2. That’s the ruse these people are using to take your money. Don’t get me started.
Is it a good idea to relinquesh control of our main source of power to a foreign-based conglomerate? If Gaz Metro and/or the hydrodam is hacked or attacked, will the Legislature disburse candles and hand warmers? Maybe Senator MacDonald’s extra blanket comment is part of the emergency plan? Sitting ducks and our domestic/foreign adversaries are well aware of such.
Melissa, unless you can afford to go ‘off-grid’ and generate 100% of your own electricity, you’ve relinquished control of your power supply and ‘the grid’. Again, Green Mountain Power, VT’s largest electricity supplier, is wholly owned by the Quebec conglomerate that owns Hydro Quebec. So why pay 24 cents per kwh for a politically subsidized power source when you could pay half that much in a free market? You could take the savings and pay for your own off-grid energy source. But like everything the government does for you, the excessive costs consume whatever discretionary income you otherwise might have so you can’t invest in your own independent systems. It’s just like the education system and the healthcare system. And, as usual, Vermont’s legislators are enabling these grifters.
Relinqueshing control was an inside job – believe it accelerated under Governor Shumlin, Mary Powell, Margaret Cheney (aka Mrs. Senator Peter Welch) et. al. – and there is this dated Sept 3, 2014: “Sept. 2, David Rosowsky, UVM Provost, joined with Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin, Mary Powell, CEO of Green Mountain Power, and David Crane, CEO of NRG Energy, Inc. — the largest solar power developer in the U.S. — to announce a new partnership between GMP and NRG pushing Vermont forward on a path toward national leadership in developing and deploying sustainable energy technologies.” David Rosowsky: “University of Vermont stands ready to contribute,” he said. “We are the intellectual and economic engine of the state, creating an educated workforce for creating new technologies and new companies — to create jobs.”
How has this collusion and palm greasing worked out 20 years later? Good paying jobs, educated workforce, or cheaper electric rates? Hogwashing snake oil salesmen and saleswomen = a cartel of criminals.
buy your own land//// drill your own well/// put in your own septic system///
buy a multi fuel generator/// grow your own food/// stop the governments from owning and controlling the land base/// you will find that only a small percent of people can do this any more///
And then there’s Robert Bryce pointing out that NY almost had a catastrophic failure of its natgas power in December 2022 – article is called Bone-Chilling and can be found here – https://robertbryce.substack.com/p/bone-chilling