Power for the Future
One of the major challenges for Vermont’s utilities is determining where we will get our power in the future. Contracts for two-thirds of the state’s current sources expire between 2012 and 2015, as Vermont Yankee’s license and the contract with Hydro Quebec expire. Before we make the decisions about how to replace that power we need to understand what Vermonters want. The Department of Public Service was charged by the Legislature to conduct extensive surveys of Vermonters to get a sense of how people in Vermont feel about the energy they will use in the future.
To learn about how the surveys were conducted and what we learned, go to www.vermontsenergyfuture.info. And we’d love to know what YOU think. Let us know here what is important to you.
Dorothy Schnure
Manager, Corporate Communications
Green Mountain Power Blog Team
|
2 Comments
|
2 References
Reader Comments (2)
Like most people who are interested in alternative energy, my first step was conservation. I'm down to about 250 watts average (about 175 KWH/month). Thus, e.g., a wind turbine larger than about 1KW for me would mean giving power away (assuming 25% capacity factor). But a 3KW turbine is MUCH more cost effective, as most of the overall cost is in the tower, cables, inverter, etc.
I understand that some argue that requiring such purchases has "the potential for shifting costs to other customers." - Well of course, such a policy means subsidizing such power. But that is true for all requirements for the grid to accept "clean" power, including SPEED, RPS, cow power, etc, as long as that power is more expensive than "conventional" power. That is why some people volunteer to pay extra, in return for a promise the utilities made to purchase more clean power.
In truth, the impact of true net metering on other customers would be no different in this regard from the existing so-called net-metering. If (1) I put up a windmill that makes more electricity than I use (on an annual basis), and if the utility had to pay me for the excess power, the net result for the utility would be EXACTLY the same as either of the following alternative scenarios: (2) my neighbor, who uses a lot more electricity than either I use or the windmill makes, puts up the very same windmill, rather than me, and his electric bill is reduced by the full amount, or (3) I put up the same windmill, but sign up for "group net metering" along with my other, more frugal, neighbor, and between us we use more than the windmill generates. In all 3 scenarios the same amount of power is used in the same households, the same amount of power is generated by the turbine and added to the grid, and the same amount of money is subtracted from the utility's revenue. The only thing special about scenario (1) is that it might attract more applicants, since it does not require as much paperwork as scenario (3), and the energy-splurging neighbor in (2) is statistically less likely to be interested in such an endeavor.
So, is the current policy a real attempt to promote the installation of local renewable power generation, or just window dressing? Is it to encourage conservation of energy, or to enhance the profitability of the utilities? After all, if I were to (needlessly) use more electricity, then I could benefit from all the power from a larger turbine. But not so if instead I relinquish some of that power so that others may use it. As they say, "no good deed goes unpunished".
In the case of solar power on hot summer afternoons, when solar output is maximized, and the utilities are buying very expensive "peaking" power on the New England spot market to supply the air conditioners, the net-metered power actually would save the utilities money even if they had to pay average-retail for it.
If we here in Vermont are at all serious about encouraging distributed renewable power generation, we should pay something for it, rather than expect it to be donated for free. Any such power not generated because of this disincentive is power that we pay for anyway, but derived from climate-destroying and ever-more-expensive fossil fuels instead.