Roper: Vermont House passes Renewable Energy Standard amidst cloud of baloney

Timothy Page

March 22

by Rob Roper

This week the House voted in favor of H.287 – An act relating to the Renewable Energy Standard by a vote of 99-39 with eleven members absent. Even with a half a dozen or so Democrats joining all of the Republicans in voting NO, it looks like the Democrat Party leadership has twisted enough arms, if everyone were present, to override a gubernatorial veto. Here’s to hoping Senators have more common sense.

The overall issue with this bill is that it will by some estimates cost electric utilities and additional  $1 billion dollars purchase power over the next decade, which means, when fully implemented, as much as an additional $192 tacked onto the average Vermonter’s annual electric bill. This is on top of other factors leading to higher costs such as increased demand, inflation, etc.

The added cost in H.289 comes largely from the fact that lawmakers are forcing utilities to buy more in-state renewable energy from companies that are, coincidentally, major donors to their campaigns and causes. The utilities themselves and the Department of Public Service backed another plan to meet the Net Zero emissions goals for a fraction of the cost by allowing the utilities to buy clean power from any available source. But this bill isn’t really about emissions, it’s about cronyism.

So, what do regular old Vermonters get for this added expense? Not a thing!

This point was made clear in a floor debate exchange between Representatives Gina Galfetti (R-Barre Town) and Laura Sibilia (1-Dover). Well, clear despite the rhetorical smoke screen of jargon and obfuscation (that’s a polite term for the fecal waste of a male bovine) thrown up by Sibilia, which was truly monumental. Let’s analyze!

Here’s Galfetti’s question, “Scientifically speaking, what impact will moving the RES target up by two years and increasing the mandate from [75] percent to 100 percent renewables, as S.289 would have us do, have on future climate trends and extreme weather events in Vermont?” Pretty straight forward. Could answered with one word: none.

Instead, after re-stating the question a couple of times Sibilia starts spewing the kind of word salad non-answer to a simple question that she is, hat tip, the master of. I’ll interject my thoughts in brackets and italics as they occur.

SIBILIA: “One of the important factors of the work that Vermont has done around climate change is committing to the Paris Accords. Why is that important? [It’s not. Particularly in regard to the question? But do go on….] That is important because there are other much larger countries, much larger states, that are also committed to the Paris Accords and to reducing carbon emissions. Why does that matter for Vermont? [It doesn’t. You’re presenting something irrelevant as if it were a relevant point in order to avoid answering the question.] We – and as someone who lives in rural Vermont I feel acutely – we run the risk if we are not keeping apace of falling pretty far behind and falling behind pretty quickly [Now, here’s an opening for Galfetti to ask, okay, what are the consequences of ‘falling behind’ in terms of impact on future climate trends and extreme weather events in Vermont? Answer: none, unless you count Vermont ratepayers saving a billion dollars as a consequence.], and our most vulnerable will be subjected to that falling behind. [Another opening to ask really? How so?] We’ve seen this with the transition ---

At this point, Representative Joe Parsons (R-Newbury) called for a point of order, stating what should have been obvious to any rational person in the room, “I’m hearing a speech and not an answer. I don’t think she’s giving an answer, I think she’s just giving a speech.” Yup! But Speaker Jill Krowinsky (D-Burlington) of course ruled the “answer” Sibilia was giving was just fine. Let’s get back to it….

SIBILIA: “We frequently have this debate here when we are talking about the energy transition: ‘This is not going to fix the climate here in Vermont.’ And we are not an island here. [No, we’re not. Without China, Russia, India, etc. on board doing these same things – and they are emphatically not on board -- our efforts here are entirely wasted. So how is this worth an extra billion dollars on your constituents’ electric bills?] So, what is the effect that this Renewable Energy Standard is going to have on the climate here in Vermont? It’s the same that it will have across the United States. [Yes, none. Why can’t you just say that? NONE!]

It’s not going to stop the impacts of climate change we are seeing and feeling right now here. What it will help with is allowing more distributed energy, more renewable energy in our state and gives us greater resilience for stronger storms and more frequent storms which we are seeing in Vermont. You know, some of our utility folks let me know whenever there are hurricane force winds now just because it’s pretty wild that that’s a regular occurrence and causing damage.


Okay, stop the tape! This is just absurd. How does more renewable energy – wind and solar – which are in the best of circumstances intermittent, non-baseload power – going to make us more resilient in the face of hurricane force winds, etc.? The most wind resistant wind turbines automatically shut down – stop producing any power whatsoever – when wind speeds hit 55 mph – 18 mph LESS than when hurricane force winds kick in at 72 mph. And since more rain means more clouds which means less efficient solar generation, if we are really experiencing hurricane force winds and the cloud cover that generally accompanies more flooding as a regular occurrences, mandating more reliance on in-state wind and solar is the last thing we should be doing.

What H.289 does is add the injury of making us LESS RESILIENT in the face of extreme weather to the insult of having to pay a billion dollars more for less reliable power. Sibilia is just flat out lying here. Call her out!

But back to the debate…. Galfetti asks, “Okay, so I just want to be clear. Basically, rate payers are going to have to purchase carbon [Renewable Energy] credits [or RECs] in order to not be able to measure any impact on climate change in the state of Vermont. I want to be sure that’s correct.” And here Galfetti falls into the trap you have be wary of when dealing with someone educated in the Bill Clinton School of It Depends on What the Definition of ‘Is’ Is.

SIBILIA – Rate payers are not required to purchase credits. None of our utilities are required to purchase credits, and when they do it is usually to maintain rates and to manage rates…. So, RECs are typically a means of keeping rates low. Low-er.

Again, stop the tape! No, ratepayers don’t ‘purchase’ RECs directly, they are forced to pay the cost of them in their electric bills. Sibilia knows this. No, utilities aren’t ‘required’ to purchase RECs if they can get all of their power from sources deemed renewable by the RES, which happens never. Sibilia knows this. That’s not what Galfetti was getting at, and Sibilia knows that too. And to insinuate that the government forcing utilities to buy RECs – an artificial cost placed on top of the actual cost of the power -- to utilize certain sources of power is somehow a tool for lowering electric rates for customers is at best a grotesque attempt to mislead people.

Even so, the REC discussion was an unnecessary rabbit hole to open up and get dragged into. Who buys RECs and a detailed discussion of how they work is at best tangential to the main point: H.289 raises the cost of electricity by as much as a billion dollars, and Vermonters get no benefit from that added expense. Ergo, there is no good reason to vote for this bill.

The floor debate over H.289 went on for roughly four hours – largely like this (I watch this stuff so you don’t have to…). And this post covering about seven minutes of it is already getting long, so I’ll wind up with one more whopper told by Laura Sibilia:

Is that [the RES] going to fix the climate in Vermont? It’s not going to fix the climate in Vermont, but it’s going to help fix – it’s going to help slow the climate change impacts globally. [Emphasis added.]

Good grief! The follow up question to that is, “Really. By how much?” Answer: By no detectible amount. And, “Is that worth another billion dollars coming out of already struggling Vermonters’ pockets?” I’ll answer more succinctly that the Representative from Dover. “No.” It is not.  


For another example of a Rep. lying is butt off on the floor regarding this bill (spoiler alert, it’s Rep. Marc Mihaly (D-Calais) , check out this excellent article by Annette Smith of Vermonters for a Clean Environment.

Rob Roper is a freelance writer who has been involved with Vermont politics and policy for over 20 years. This article reprinted with permission from Behind the Lines: Rob Roper on Vermont Politics, robertroper.substack.com

Views: 48

Comment

You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!

Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine

Comment by Willem Post on March 26, 2024 at 9:27pm

On snowy days, despite their huge installed capacity, MW, their generation, MWh, is way short of their “wished for” generation, due to “weather dependence”

That solar generation would normally have a big bulge at noon-time, which far exceeds demand.

Storing it in batteries and discharging 80% of it during the peak hours of late afternoon/early evening, is out of the question, as that would add at least
30 c/kWh, to the price of the solar electricity fed to the battery.

Go woke, go big-time broke.

Now you know why the electricity rates in California are skyrocketing.
A bunch of climate screwballs are in charge, stealing from your pocket
They make the rules that enable their stealing.

The only solution is to elect Trump by a landslide to far more than overcome any fraud, so he can undo all that dysfunctional wind/solar/battery BS

BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital...
 
EXCERPT:
Annual Cost of Megapack Battery Systems; 2023 pricing
Assume a system rated 45.3 MW/181.9 MWh, and an all-in turnkey cost of $104.5 million, per Example 2
Amortize bank loan for 50% of $104.5 million at 6.5%/y for 15 years, $5.484 million/y
Pay Owner return of 50% of $104.5 million at 10%/y for 15 years, $6.765 million/y (10% due to high inflation)
Lifetime (Bank + Owner) payments 15 x (5.484 + 6.765) = $183.7 million
Assume battery daily usage for 15 years at 10%, and loss factor = 1/(0.9 *0.9)
Battery lifetime output = 15 y x 365 d/y x 181.9 MWh x 0.1, usage x 1000 kWh/MWh = 99,590,250 kWh to HV grid; 122,950,926 kWh from HV grid; 233,606,676 kWh loss
(Bank + Owner) payments, $183.7 million / 99,590,250 kWh = 184.5 c/kWh
Less 50% subsidies (ITC, depreciation in 5 years, deduction of interest on borrowed funds) is 92.3c/kWh
At 10% throughput, (Bank + Owner) cost, 92.3 c/kWh
At 40% throughput, (Bank + Owner) cost, 23.1 c/kWh
 
Excluded costs/kWh: 1) O&M; 2) system aging, 1.5%/y, 3) 20% HV grid-to-HV grid loss, 4) grid extension/reinforcement to connect battery systems, 5) downtime of parts of the system, 6) decommissioning in year 15, i.e., disassembly, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites. Excluded costs would add at least 10 – 15 c/kWh
 
NOTE: The 40% throughput is close to Tesla’s recommendation of 60% maximum throughput, i.e., not charging above 80% full and not discharging below 20% full, to achieve a 15-y life, with normal aging
Tesla’s recommendation was not heeded by the Owners of the Hornsdale Power Reserve in Australia. They excessively charged/discharged the system. After a few years, they added Megapacks to offset rapid aging of the original system, and added more Megapacks to increase the rating of the expanded system.
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-hornsdale-power-res...
 
COMMENTS ON CALCULATION: 
Regarding any project, the bank and the owner have to be paid.
Therefore, I amortized the bank loan and the owner’s investment
If you divide the total of the payments over 15 years by the throughput during 15 years, you get the cost per kWh, as shown.
According to EIA annual reports, almost all battery systems have throughputs less than 10%. I chose 10% for calculations.
A few battery systems have higher throughputs, if they are used to absorb midday solar and discharge it the during peak hour periods of late-afternoon/early-evening. They may reach up to 40% throughput. I chose 40% for calculations.
Remember, you have to draw about 50 MWh from the HV grid to deliver about 40 MWh to the HV grid, because of A-to-Z system losses. That gets worse with aging.
A lot of people do not like these c/kWh numbers, because they have been repeatedly told by self-serving folks, low-cost battery Nirvana is just around the corner, which is a load of crap.

Comment by Willem Post on March 25, 2024 at 7:52am

It is just a measure to allow them to take more money from your pocket to finance all sorts of existing and new government programs.

Comment by Long Islander on March 23, 2024 at 12:54pm

Electric Auto Crats in Maine. This all comes down from on high. Our government is infested.

Comment by Monique Aniel Thurston on March 23, 2024 at 11:34am

Thank you  Rob and Annette for setting the record straight on H 289.

If ruling with unlimited authority is the definition of autocracy , then one can say without the shadow of a doubt that Vermont “democratic” legislators are no longer democrats but tyrannical and obsessive autocrats  .
While countless Vermonters have testified as well as expressed by phone or emails their opposition to their legislators to the the cost of renewable energy bills for the last two legislative sessions  , Vermont  House democrats, driven by unsubstantiated arguments and pushed by  political ideology and a coziness with the renewable energy industry, have in fact voted in support of that new even more demanding egregious bill .
Vermont residents should be terrified of each one of those legislators .

 

Maine as Third World Country:

CMP Transmission Rate Skyrockets 19.6% Due to Wind Power

 

Click here to read how the Maine ratepayer has been sold down the river by the Angus King cabal.

Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting – Three Part Series: A CRITICAL LOOK AT MAINE’S WIND ACT

******** IF LINKS BELOW DON'T WORK, GOOGLE THEM*********

(excerpts) From Part 1 – On Maine’s Wind Law “Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met." . – Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, August 2010 https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/From Part 2 – On Wind and Oil Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation. And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, says Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating – if they did, we’d be in trouble.” So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?" https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-swept-task-force-set-the-rules/From Part 3 – On Wind-Required New Transmission Lines Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine – oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines – that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.” https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/flaws-in-bill-like-skating-with-dull-skates/

Not yet a member?

Sign up today and lend your voice and presence to the steadily rising tide that will soon sweep the scourge of useless and wretched turbines from our beloved Maine countryside. For many of us, our little pieces of paradise have been hard won. Did the carpetbaggers think they could simply steal them from us?

We have the facts on our side. We have the truth on our side. All we need now is YOU.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

 -- Mahatma Gandhi

"It's not whether you get knocked down: it's whether you get up."
Vince Lombardi 

Task Force membership is free. Please sign up today!

Hannah Pingree on the Maine expedited wind law

Hannah Pingree - Director of Maine's Office of Innovation and the Future

"Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine."

https://pinetreewatch.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/

© 2024   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service