FORTRESS VERMONT, A MULTI-BILLION BOONDOGGLE FOISTED ONTO RATEPAYERS AND TAXPAYERS

Weather-dependent wind and solar often supply too much or too little electricity. The “100%-RE-in-Vermont” folks want to charge the unused electricity in battery systems and discharge it, as needed, during peak demand hours. They propose a $1.2 billion down-payment on “Fortress Vermont”.

 

- About $900 million would be for new electricity storage systems, during the 2020 – 2025 period, and several $billions thereafter, to implement “100%-RE-in-Vermont”. The battery capacity would be about $900 million/($750/kWh) = 1200 MWh, i.e., 300 MW delivered for 4 hours. See Notes.

 

- About $300 million would be to pay wind/solar system owners whose electricity outputs would be curtailed during high winds and very sunny days, during the 2020 – 2025 period.

 

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-vagaries-of-solar-...

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-sol...

 

NOTE: NREL defines the 4-hour duration as the output duration of the battery, such that a 4-hour device would be able to discharge at rated capacity for 4-hours. In practice that would mean that the device would charge for more than 4 hours and would nominally hold more than its rated energy capacity in order to compensate for losses during charge and discharge.

FROM FORTRESS VERMONT TO FORTRESS NEW ENGLAND

 

If a future NE electricity mix would be 40% from wind, 40% from solar, and the rest from hydro and wood and refuse burning (gas and nuclear plants would be closed), and if all of New England were as foolish as Vermont, and Fortress Vermont were to become Fortress New England, instead of a “down-payment” of about $1.2 billion, about 122/6 x 1.2 = $24.4 billion would be required to install 122/6 x 2400 = 48,800 MW of battery storage systems during the 2020 – 2025 period. 

 

About 122/6 x 0.9 = $18.3 billion would recur every 15 years to replace the battery systems!

Additional multi-$billion "down-payments" would be required after 2025.

 

All that, and more, would be shifted onto ratepayers, taxpayers and debt, to support the massive build-outs of heavily subsidized cripples, called wind and solar, that could not even exist on the grid without the other generators and/or grid-scale storage systems. See URL.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-na...

6-Day Wind/Solar Lull: The normal average electricity fed to the NE grid during a 6-day period is about 122 billion/365 x 6 = 2 billion kWh.

 

In case of a randomly occurring, 6-day wind/solar lull, about 664.4 million kWh would be fed to the NE grid, as shown in table 1.

 

The NE battery (48,800 MWh) could provide only about 50% of its capacity (24,400 MWh), because the rest has to be available for 1) midday DUCK-curve management (which may involve curtailment) and 2) counteracting the ups and downs of wind/solar outputs, 24/7/365.

If demand management/rationing were applied to reduce normal average electricity fed to the NE grid from 2000 to 1600 million kWh, the shortfall would be 2000 – 400 - 664.4 = 935.6 million kWh, which could be made up by:

1) imports, if sufficient connections to adjacent grids, or

2) a very large capacity of batteries, which would be off-the-charts expensive.

Connections to Adjacent Grids: About 10,000 MW of new connections to adjacent grids (about $15 billion, turnkey), operated at 0.65 capacity factor, could provide the 935.6 million kWh shortfall during the 6 days.

NOTE: What would happen if a second lull comes along a few days later, and the battery systems are not yet sufficiently charged after dealing with the first lull, as happened in Germany. See URL

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-energy-l...

Some URLs for information:

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/comparison-of-ne-vt-hyd...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-co2-reduction-o...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-co2-reduction-o...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/response-to-energy-acti...

 

Embodied CO2 of Battery Storage Systems: Here is an estimate of embodied CO2 of the grid-scale NE battery system, which, as we saw, was not anywhere near adequate during a 6-d wind/solar lull in NE. Many more such batteries systems would be required.

 

Embodied CO2 of mass-produced batteries for EVs likely would be less per MWh, than of custom-built, field-erected, battery systems.

Embodied CO2 of a Nissan Leaf Plus battery (62 kWh) would be about 10.10/62 = 0.163 metric ton/kWh; battery life about 15 years

Embodied CO2 of the NE battery (48,800 MWh) would be at least 0.163 x 48,800,000/15 = 530,000 Mt/y.

That CO2 would need to be included with the overall CO2 of the NE grid. See URL, table 1

https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/EV-life-cycle-...

 

Table 1/6d W/S lull	Normal	Normal	6d W/S lull	6d W/S lull
Generation	%	million kWh	%	million kWh
Wind	40.0	800	6.0	120
Solar	40.0	800	6.0	120
Hydro/Wood/Refuse	20.0	400	20.0	400
Battery	0.0	0	3.7	24.4
Fed to NE grid	100.0	2000	35.7	664.4
Fed to grid shortfall				1335.6
Demand management				400.0
Fed to grid shortfall				935.6
Period, h				144
Imports, MW				6497
Capacity factor				0.65
New connections, MW				10000

FORTRESS PROPONENTS OPPOSED TO LOW-COST CANADIAN HYDRO ELECTRICITY

FORTRESS folks, who tirelessly peddle their heavily subsidized, expensive, variable/intermittent wind/solar electricity, that requires expensive, grid-scale, storage and expensive grid augmentation/expansion, absolutely do not want low-cost competition from any source, especially if that source would be 1) low-cost, say 5.7 c/kWh, and 2) would require no storage and minimal grid augmentation/expansion.

VT-DPS employees, on loan to the legislature, “are helping” legislators write a FORTRESS VERMONT bill that specifically limits Hydro-Quebec to about 33% of the Vermont electricity fed to grid. That way, FORTRESS folks get to play their expensive “islanding/fortress” games with the other 67%.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

At present, almost all of Vermont’s electricity is physically drawn from the ISO-NE-monitored, high-voltage grid, which delivers electricity “on demand”, i.e., there is very little need for grid-scale electricity storage.

 

There are paperwork arrangements, called PPAs, where utilities contract to buy renewable electricity from in-state and out-of-state producers, but that is merely bookkeeping for accountability, and has nothing to do with the physical drawing of electricity from the HV grid. 

 

Wind/solar could not even function on any grid without the other generators (mostly gas turbines) continuously varying their outputs, as needed, 24/7/365, to maintain ISO-NE-specified grid conditions

ELECTRICITY STORAGE REQUIREMENTS IN NEW ENGLAND AND VERMONT

 

If it were arbitrarily decided for Vermont to do without the other NE generators (rely only on in-state generated electricity, plus at most 33% from “big hydro”, i.e., Hydro-Quebec), grid-scale storage would be required to cover: 1) daily demand variations, 2) wind/solar lulls up to 6 days, and 3) seasonal variations. 

 

Estimated Storage Requirements for New England: If all of New England were to follow Vermont, about 10 TWh of storage would be required to cover: 1) daily demand variations, 2) wind/solar lulls up to 6 days, and 3) seasonal variations.

 

- The storage systems would have a useful life of about 15 years; I have taken low annual average capacity factors to reduce wear and tear, and prolong life, as shown in table 1

- Based on long-term studies of Tesla Model S batteries, a degradation up to 10% would occur during a 15-year lifetime.
https://electrek.co/2018/04/14/tesla-battery-degradation-data/

- The energy source mix would be: 1) mostly wind, solar and hydro, plus 2) some tree and waste burning, 3) no nuclear, and 4) minimal gas turbine plants mostly for standby.

- The turnkey cost would be about $2.5 TRILLION, based on future turnkey storage at an average of $250/kWh.

See URLs 

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-plus-solar-plus-st...
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-energy-l...

Embodied CO2 of Battery Storage Systems:

- NE solar CO2/kWh is about 64 g/kWh, largely due to China’s energy-intensive mining of raw materials, and low-efficiency coal-fired power plants (high CO2/kWh).

- NE solar CO2/kWh is higher than most elsewhere in the US, because of poor NE solar conditions. CO2/kWh is lowest in the sunny US southwest.

- The embodied CO2 of batteries storage systems would be about 10.10/62 = 0.163 metric ton/kWh (Nissan Leaf Plus), or 1.63 billion Mt for 10 TWh of batteries, or 1.63/15 = 10.9 million Mt/y. That CO2 would need to be added to the overall CO2 of the NE grid. See URL, table 1

https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/EV-life-cycle-...

Estimated Storage Requirements for Vermont: If Fortress Vermont were implemented, Vermont would need:

 

Alternative No. 1: About 6/122 x 10 = 0.49 TWh of storage, if “big hydro” did not perform the peaking and filling-in, 24/7/365, for Vermont.

Peaking, filling-in and fine-tune balancing would be performed in Vermont.

The turnkey capital cost would be about (6, VT grid load) / (122, NE grid load) x $2500 billion = $123 billion

 

Alternative No. 2: About 20,000 MWh of storage, if “big hydro” did perform almost all of the peaking and filling-in, 24/7/365, for Vermont, as is done by Norway’s hydro plants for Denmark.

The storage systems would: 1) mitigate mid-day DUCK curves, 2) surges in wind electricity, and 3) fine-tune balancing.

The turnkey capital cost would be about 20000 x 1000 x 250 = $5.0 billion, i.e., the above $900 million would indeed be just a "down-payment for the Fortress", but only if “big hydro” helps out, just as Norway’s hydro plants help out Denmark.

  

STORAGE ECONOMICS IN CASE OF NET-METERED SOLAR; dealing with daily DUCK curves

 

The storage systems would mitigate the grid-disturbing DUCK curves, by absorbing unused mid-day solar electricity, when demand is low, and releasing it during late-afternoon/early-evening, when demand is high. 

 

Battery systems: 1) have an electricity loss of about 15 to 20%, grid-voltage to grid-voltage basis, 2) have high turnkey cost per installed kWh, and 3) last only about 15 years.

 

Net-Metered Cost: The lost quantity of electricity had been net-metered before entering the battery system and, as such, was added to the GMP rate base at about 21.8 c/kWh; a cost shift onto ratepayers. The more electricity going through storage, the larger the addition of expensive electricity to the rate base, and the greater the cost shift onto ratepayers. See table D in Appendix.

 

Battery Loss Cost: The additional cost of sending expensive, subsidized, solar electricity through a battery system would be about 15 to 20 c/kWh; includes amortizing the battery at 3.5% for 15 years.

 

Total Cost: Table 1 shows the cost of sending net-metered electricity through the $900 million, 2400-MWh, battery system, at various battery load cycles, at 17.5% throughput loss, with met-metered at 21.8 c/kWh, and amortizing at 3.5% for 15 years. Fixed and variable maintenance and operation costs are ignored

https://www.myamortizationchart.com

 

Total cost = 21.8 + 14.9 = 36.7 c/kWh. i.e., net-metered solar with batteries is about 7 to 8 times more expensive than just buying wholesale from the grid. See Notes

NOTE: The state government may claim amortizing the capital cost does not apply to the state, because it just extorts, interest-free, any money from ratepayers and taxpayers, as needed. All it needs is a law authorizing the extortions.

NOTE: Often the comment is made battery systems for shifting solar electricity from mid-day to late-afternoon/early-evening (a form of peak-shaving) does not pay, unless:

 

1) The electric rate differential is extremely high, and

2) The battery systems would perform other grid services, such as fine-tune balancing. However, the NE grid needs very little of such fine-tune balancing; i.e. a few battery systems could perform the service.

 

NOTE: NE wholesale prices of electricity have averaged about 5 c/kWh, starting in 2009, due to decreasing prices of low-cost, domestic gas and the already-low-cost prices of nuclear, which together were 76% of total NE generation of electricity in 2019. Those low prices have been a major boost for the NE economy.

 

NOTE: At present, the subsidized owners of net-metered solar systems get paid about 18 c/kWh, and GMP gets paid about 3.8 c/kWh, “to cover various costs”, for a total of 21.8 c/kWh. See Appendix,  table D. 

 

Table 1/Storage cost
Battery capacity	MWh	2400	2400	2400
Capacity factor		0.29	0.33	0.38
Into Battery, daily average	MWh/d	700	800	900
Loss fraction, A to Z basis		0.175	0.175	0.175
Out of battery, daily average	MWh/d	577.5	660	742.5
Loss	MWh/d	122.5	140	157.5
Net-metered cost	c/kWh	21.8	21.8	21.8
COST
Net-metered cost	$/d	26,705	30,520	34,335
Net-metered cost	$/15y	146,209,875	167,097,000	187,984,125
Amortizing cost	$/15y	1,158,109,717	1,158,109,717	1,158,109,717
Total cost	$/15y	1,304,319,592	1,325,206,717	1,346,093,842
Total out of battery	kWh/15y	3,161,812,500	3,613,500,000	4,065,187,500
Cost	c/kWh	41.3	36.7	33.1
Storage cost adder	c/kWh	19.5	14.9	11.3

REDUCING ISO-NE FCM AND RNS CHARGES WITH BATTERIES IS A FANTASY

 

FCM and RNS Reduction: The economics of the battery would be significantly improved, if the reduction of forward capacity market, FCM, and regional network services, RNS, charges were credited to the battery. See table 2

 

The storage systems would mitigate the grid-disturbing DUCK curves, by absorbing unused mid-day solar electricity, when demand is low, and releasing it during late-afternoon/early-evening, when demand is high. 

 

On average, this could reduce VT peak demand from, say 900 MW to 500 MW, which would reduce ISO-NE charges for FCM and RNS to VT utilities by about $81 million/y or 1.215 billion/15y; the charges are based on yearly peak demand and monthly peak demand, respectively.

 

The FCM charge reduction could be (900 – 500) x 7.03 x 1000 x 12 = $33,744,000 for the 2019/2020 period

The RNS charge reduction could be (900 – 500) x 9.83 x 1000 x 12 = $47,184,000 for the 2019/2021 period

However, that reduction would be a fantasy, because utilities in other NE states would also install grid-scale batteries.

The NE grid peak demands would be reduced, but not the costs of the FCM and RNS programs.

 

ISO-NE would significantly increase their rates, $/kW-month, to cover program costs, i.e., the FCM, RNS reduction would be much less, and the Net cost adder would be much larger. See table 2

Table 2/Total cost from table 1	$/15y	1,304,319,592	1,325,206,717	1,346,093,842
FCM, RNS reduction	$/15y	1,215,000,000	1,215,000,000	1,215,000,000
Net cost	$/15y	89,319,592	110,206,717	131,093,842
Total out of battery	kWh/15y	3,161,812,500	3,613,500,000	4,065,187,500
Net cost adder	c/kWh	2.82	3.05	3.22
Net-metered cost	c/kWh	21.8	21.8	21.8
Total cost	c/kWh	24.62	24.85	25.02

 

See URL pages 10 and 11 for historic FCM and RNS rates imposed on utilities by ISO-NE

https://legislature.vermont.gov/assets/Legislative-Reports/Annual-2...

 

Table 3/Period	2018/2019	2019/2020	2020/2021	2021/2022
	$/kW-month	$/kW-month	$/kW-month	$/kW-month
FCM	9.95	7.03	5.3	4.63
RNS	9.17	9.83	10.42	10.83

COST SHIFTING ONTO RATEPAYERS AND TAXPAYERS 

 Per standard practice, to make the cost “disappear”, the cost likely would be: 1) spread over the 6 billion kWh/y fed to the Vermont grid, just like all other such costs over the years, and/or 2) show up as a “Fortress Vermont” surcharge on electric bills, just as the onerous Efficiency Vermont surcharge.

 

Why are the subsidized owners of solar systems not paying for these storage systems, as they are the grid disturbers?

 

Instead, based on past history, the cost likely would be indiscriminately shifted onto ratepayers and taxpayers, the vast majority of whom do not even own, or cannot even afford, solar systems

EUROPEAN GRID INTERCONNECTION MUCH LESS COSTLY THAN BATTERY STORAGE  

European countries have been dealing with exactly those wind/solar problems for at least 15 - 25 years.

Their mantra is interconnect. interconnect, interconnect, which Germany, Denmark, Ireland, the Netherlands, France, etc., did and are still doing. Just Google.

 

That is the OPPOSITE of what FORTRESS folks are fantasizing about. No wonder my reaction was:

 

VERMONT IS GOING TO HELL IN A HAND BASKET WITH FOOLISH ENERGY SYSTEMS

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-is-going-to-hel... 

GERMANY

 

Germany has installed a lot of solar and wind systems, plus strong connections to nearby grids, such as France, Norway, the Netherlands, etc. That way any excess or shortage of solar/wind electricity (due to the randomness of winds blowing and sun shining) is balanced by electricity flows to and from the German grid. Germany is a net exporter of electricity.

 

As a result, Germany requires very little grid-scale battery storage, which, as shown above, would be insanely expensive, even at a future $250/kWh for turnkey systems. The expensive battery-storage approach would have adversely affected the competitiveness of the German economy.

Germany does not think of itself as FORTRESS GERMANY, because that would be considered beyond rational, by the engineers who run the energy systems.

The German electricity fed to grid is about 600 TWh/y versus Vermont about 6 TWh/y.

The folly of a $900 million “down-payment for a FORTRESS VERMONT” would be about $90 billion for a FORTRESS GERMANY.

High Household Electric Rates: Because Germany has installed a high level of wind/solar capacity per capita, it also has the highest household electric rates in Europe, about 30 eurocent/kWh. The more wind/solar, the higher the household electric rates.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Electr...

DENMARK

 

Denmark does exactly the same as Germany. It has strong connections to nearby grids, such as Norway, the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, etc. It could never have as much installed wind capacity/capita, if it it did not have such strong connections

 

Because Denmark has installed a high level of wind capacity/capita, it also has the highest household electric rates in Europe, about 30 eurocent/kWh. The more wind/solar, the higher the household electric rates.

 

IRELAND

Ireland, a much windier country than Vermont, especially on the west coast, had an island grid until a few years ago, similar to the NE grid, that prevented the installation of more wind turbines.

 

The EU, in Brussels, provided Ireland with subsidies to install strong connections with the larger UK and French grids to counteract the ups and downs of Irish wind electricity; no storage was required in Ireland, and many more wind turbines were installed.

 

If it had not been for lower prices of imported gas, electric rates would be closer to those of Denmark and Germany!!

NEW ENGLAND

 

If New England installs more wind and solar systems, it will need stronger connections to nearby grids in the near future (with nuclear and gas plants closing?), NE would:

 

- Get the peaking, filling-in of NE wind and solar practically for free, plus

- Have electricity imports under power purchase agreements, PPAs;

- Two birds with one stone.

- Fine-tune balancing would continue to be in NE.

 

NE would be exporting its excess of expensively subsidized wind/solar electricity during high winds or strong sunshine at low prices, which would benefit Hydro-Quebec, because it would merely vary the flow through its hydro plants, as needed by demand, 24/7/365.

 

The alternative would be to expensively store that excess electricity in heavily subsidized storage systems.

VERMONT

Why are Vermont career-bureaucrats and career-legislators advocating electricity storage systems costing $1.2 BILLION, as a down payment, towards creating “FORTRESS VERMONT”?

 

There are no good engineering reasons, as shown by Germany, Denmark and Ireland

Vermont should have strong connections to nearby grids as well, just as Germany, Denmark and Ireland.

 

LAES and Battery Systems in the NEK: However, this about having liquid air energy storage, LAES, and battery storage systems in northeast Vermont, NEK, because future 600-ft tall wind turbine systems on pristine, 2000-ft-high ridge lines are “planned” for that sparsely populated area, which has a weak grid to serve its low electricity demand.

 

The NEK people are opposed to being used as a doormat, i.e., suffer the blight, the noise, and the adverse environmental impact of hundreds of noisy wind turbines on their beautiful ridge lines, likely owned by out-of-state millionaires, to produce electricity for the west side of Vermont, which has high electricity demand, i.e., Manchester, Burlington, Montpelier, Rutland, etc.

The people in those towns control the legislature. They are “pro-wind”, just not in their backyard, per hypocrite-NIMBY syndrome.

 

NOTE: It is no accident Highview Power, a UK company, eager to do more business in the US, has been talking with Vermont Electric Co-op about its LAES systems. The LAES storage systems would serve to expensively reduce the disturbances wind electricity would impose on the weak NEK grid.

 

Clean Energy Development Fund: CEDF, likely would grant 50%, or more, of any capital cost required to build battery and LAES systems to make the “numbers” look better; CEDF used to be funded by Vermont Yankee and ARRA funds.

With enough subsidies, even pigs can be made to fly!

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/liquid-air-energy-storage-laes-in-vermont

NOTE: VY produced 4.7 billion kWh/y of steady electricity, year after year, with no particulates, near-zero CO2, at about 4.5 to 5 c/kWh.

It was a major benefit for the Vermont economy.

Closing VY was sold by Shumlin as a victory.

In reality, it was Shumlin shooting Vermont in the foot to get re-elected.

The loss of VY caused a significant recession/malaise in the south of Vermont.

 

FORTRESS VERMONT

Career-legislators/career-bureaucrats have come up with a catchy slogan, Fortress Vermont, to fool Vermonters and legislators, and to make it easier to get into their wallets and bank accounts.

 

No other state is aiming to be a “Fortress” regarding renewable energy, not even Germany, Denmark or Ireland.

 

All of rah-rah is just a ploy to get money, extracted from ratepayers and taxpayers, so CEDF could distribute largesse throughout the state to favored folks, such as the politically well-connected RE companies.

 

The tax payer funds would be used for subsidizing the building of expensive energy systems that later would turn out not to reduce CO2 at a reasonable cost as promised, as with:

 

1) The urging and subsidizing ASHPs in Vermont’s energy-hog houses.

Owners have annual losses, if amortizing the cost of ASHPs is taken into account.

Little CO2 is reduced/ASHP.

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-savings-of-air-sou...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-co2-reduction-o...

 

2) The urging and subsidizing EVs replacing gasoline vehicles.

Owners have small $gains, or even losses, if amortizing the extra cost of EVs is taken into account.

The CO2 reduction is not nearly as large as bandied about by EAN, on an A to Z lifetime basis.

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-proper-basis-for-ca...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-co2-reduction-o...

 

3) The urging and subsidizing of expensive and inadequate weatherizing of Vermont’s energy-hog houses, which would still not allow 100% space heat from ASHPs!!

 

Remember, these are the same folks who, some years ago, colluded to set up a subsidized program to have ASHPs in energy-hog houses, which turned out to be an expensive flop for almost all homeowners, but a bonanza for Efficiency Vermont’s “approved” installers, and Japanese ASHP manufacturers.

 

Remember, these are the same folks who, some years ago, colluded to set up a plethora of heavily subsidized energy programs that had the net effect of:

 

- Lining the pockets of the politically well-connected

- Imposing a lot of extra costs on the hard-working people, trying to make ends meet, in the near-zero, real-growth, Vermont economy.

- Not reducing Vermont’s CO2 from 1990 to 2018, despite investing about $5 billion in energy systems over about 28 years.

APPENDIX 1

NE Electric Grid CO2

 

ISO-NE uses fuel/energy fed to power plants, PE, to calculate CO2/kWh.

ISO-NE does not include CO2 of upstream energy

Upstream is about 10.2% of PE CO2

https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2020/01/draft_2018_e...

 

Fed to grid becomes 299 x 1.102 = 329 g CO2/kWh, SE basis.

Fed to wall meter becomes 323 x 1.102 = 356 g CO2/kWh, SE basis.

 

For analysis purposes, 356 g/kWh should be used for electricity via any wall meter in NE.

 

Table A shows:

 

Source energy required for a quantity of electricity at wall sockets.

Values for Tesla Model 3 (0.3080 and 0.2449 kWh/mile) and Model S (0.4339 and 0.3329 kWh/mile), based on real-world conditions in California and upstate NY, for a year. Both are more efficient EVs compared to other EVs.

Value for a mix of LDVs was assumed at 0.350 kWh/mile.

 

Table A/NE grid for 2018	LDV mix	Tesla	Tesla	Grid CO2	Grid CO2
		Model S	Model 3	PE	SE
	kWh/mile	kWh/mile	kWh/mile	g/kWh	g/kWh
Source energy	1.2291	1.1713	0.8315
Upstream for extract, process, transport, 10.2%	0.1138	0.1084	0.0770
Primary energy = Fed to power plants	1.1153	1.0629	0.7545
Conversion loss, 55.5%	0.6078	0.5793	0.4112
Gross generation	0.5075	0.4836	0.3433
Plant self-use loss, 3.0%	0.0152	0.0145	0.0103
Net generation = Fed to grid	0.4922	0.4691	0.3330	299	329
T&D loss, 7.5%	0.0369	0.0352	0.0250
Fed to wall meters = Fed to grid x 0.925	0.4553	0.4339	0.3080	323	356
Charging loss, 15% of WM	0.0683	0.0651	0.0462
Loss due to self-use, NE road/climate	0.0370	0.0359	0.0169
In batteries for a mix of LDVs, as DC	0.3500	0.3329	0.2449	420	463

 

APPENDIX 2

Vermont Electricity Sector CO2

 

Based on Physics, per ISO-NE: Electricity, via any wall socket, would have the NE mix of electricity; CO2 of 323 g/kWh, WM basis, PE basis, in 2018. See table A

  

Electricity loaded by generators into the Vermont grid is about 6 billion kWh/y, aka “grid load“

User consumption is about 6 x (1 – 0.075) = 5.55 billion kWh/y

CO2 would be 5.55 billion kWh x 323 g/kWh x 1 lb/454 g x 1 Mt/2204.62 lb = 1,791,043 Mt/y, WM basis, PE basis, in 2018

 

Based on PPAs, per VT-DPS: CO2 of the “Vermont electricity mix”, based on PPAs, yields an artificial/political value of 190,000 Mt/y in 2018, or 190000/1791043 x 323 = 34 g/kWh, WM basis, PE basis, in 2018 

   

See URL for GHG estimates for 2017 and 2018

https://dec.vermont.gov/sites/dec/files/aqc/climate-change/document...

 

APPENDIX 3

GMP and VT-DPS Reduce CO2

No CO2 is reduced by GMP signing paper PPAs with electricity generators, in-state or out-of-state.

It is unscientific for VT-DPS to calculate CO2 of the electricity sector, and CO2/kWh, based on paper PPAs, and for EAN to base CO2 reduction of ASHPs and EVs on VT-DPS numbers.

https://www.eanvt.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/EAN-report-2020-fi...

   

VT-DPS calculates CO2 of the electricity sector at 32 g/kWh for 2018, based on PPAs

ISO-NE calculates CO2 at 299 g/kWh for 2018, based on CO2 of fuel combustion. See URL page 18

 

https://dec.vermont.gov/sites/dec/files/aqc/climate-change/document...

https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2019/04/2017_emissio...

 

Table B/Grid CO2/Year	1990	2000	2015	2016	2017, est.	2018, est.
VT-DPS, PE basis
Electricity fed to VT grid, GWh	6,000	6,000	6,000	6,000	6,000	6,000
Vermont electrical sector CO2, million Mt	1.09	0.43	1	0.81	0.49	0.19
Total CO2, all sectors	8.65	9.70	10.19	9.76	9.41	9.02
CO2, g CO2/kWh, Fed to grid basis		72	167	135	82	32
CO2, g CO2/kWh, WM basis		78	180	146	88	34
ISO-NE, PE basis
NE generation fed to grid, GWh		110,199	107,916	105,570	102,562	103,740
NE grid CO2, lb//MWh, Fed to grid basis		726	747	710	682	658
NE grid CO2, g/kWh, Fed to grid basis		330	339	322	310	299
NE grid CO2, g/kWh, WM basis		357	366	348	335	323

 

APPENDIX 4   

Vermont Electricity Prices

Table C last column, shows the c/kWh for electricity from wind. solar, hydro, etc., paid to owners of Standard Offer and Net-metered systems; those prices would be much higher without cost shifting and subsidies, paid by ratepayers and taxpayers. See URL

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-na...

 

Table C/VT In-state generation, fed to grid basis	2000	2000 – 2018	2018	2018
	Existing	New added	Total	SO/NM
Energy Source	MWh	MWh	MWh	c/kWh
Hydro, VT-DPS Utility Facts 2013	491,878	21,305	513,183	13.0
Solar, behind and before the meter; per ISO-NE		502,949	502,949	21.8
Ryegate, wood, per US-EIA	166,902		166,902	10.0
McNeil, wood, per US-EIA	244,755		244,755	10.0
Middlebury College, wood, per US-EIA		2,298	2,298	?
Farm methane; Standard Offer		22,674	22,674	14.5 to 20.0
Landfill methane		52,931	52,931	9.0
Wind		161,198	161,198	11.6 to 25.8
Total	903,535	763,355	1,666,890
VT total fed to grid, MWh	6,000,000	6,000,000	6,000,000
VT in-state, %	15.1	12.7	27.8
Vermont Yankee, nuclear, closed in 2015	4,733,640	4,733,640
Out-of-state purchases, incl. HQ			4,333,110
HQ, per Power Purchase Agreement			1,300,000	5.549
ISO-NE annual average price since 2009				5.000

 

APPENDIX 5

GMP Cost of Electricity in 2016 

Table D shows the prices GMP pays for electricity. 

Standard Offer and Net-metering prices are off-the-charts expensive.

EAN members want more SO and Net-metered,

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/green-mountain-power-co...

 

In 2016, the PUC began competitive bidding of SO solar systems.

Some recent SO solar bids were as low as 11 c/kWh.

More SO systems would slowly reduce SO solar below 21.793 c/kWh in future years. See Appendix.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-na...

 

Table D/GMP costs	1	2	3	4	5
GMP purchases, 2016	MWh	% of purchases	Cost, $	c/kWh	% of Cost
HQUS (Hydro-Quebec)	919312	22.13	51013678	5.549	20.34
Standard Offer	78920	1.90	17199202	21.793	6.86
Net-metered	71970	1.73	15699137	21.813	6.26
Ryegate (wood)	126707	3.05	12710175	10.031	5.07
ISO wholesale	575553	13.85	18645214	3.240	7.43
Misc. sources	1772462	42.66	115267406	6.503	45.96
Other sources	2382075	57.34	135516232	5.689	54.04
Total GMP purchases	4154537	100.00	250783638	6.036	100.00
ISO midday wholesale				6.000

 

APPENDIX 6

Gas Guzzler Fees to Reduce CO2

Vermont should have an energy efficiency standard for light duty vehicles.

Annual fees would be paid at time of annual registration.

Inefficient vehicles would rapidly disappear.

CO2 would be rapidly reduced.

The collected funds could be used for filling potholes.

The wasteful Comprehensive Transportation Initiative, TCI, would not be needed.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-vehicles-and-m...

 

Table E/EPA combined, mpg	Fee, $/y
40	0
39	10
38	20
37	30
36	40
35	50
34	60
Etc.

 

APPENDIX 7

GMP Purchased Electricity Mix

 

GMP electricity mix based on PPAs, i.e., paper contracts. 

GMP increased purchases of large hydro and nuclear, which have very low CO2/kWh.

GMP decreased purchases on the wholesale market, which had 299 g CO2/kWh in 2018, fed to grid basis, PE basis.

 

GMP’s paper PPAs for hydro and nuclear did not physically reduce any CO2 anywhere.

GMP is required to have such PPAs to satisfy state-RES mandates.

GMP did not need to spend any money to make any changes in its operations to reduce CO2

  

Table F/GMP Electricity Mix	2017	2018	2019
	%	%	%
Large hydro	23.7	49.4
Existing VT hydro	6.3	6.3
Total hydro	30.0	55.7	60.6
Wholesale market purchases	30.4	28.2	9.8
Nuclear	14.7	14.7	27.9
Oil and natural gas	0.5	0.4
Methane	0.7
Hydro	5.5
Solar	5.2	0.9	1.7
Wind	8.0
Wood	5.0
Total RE	24.4	0.9	1.7

 

APPENDIX 8

More Wind, Solar and Storage Harmful for Vermont 

 

GMP would need to replace the nuclear electricity, as it cannot rely on Seabrook Nuclear to be generating far into the future.

 

If the replacement were in-state RE (primarily wind, solar and storage), there would be major adverse environmental impacts on pristine ridge lines and open spaces in Vermont, plus the cost would be prohibitively expensive, which would adversely affect the Vermont economy. See URLs.

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-na...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-more-wind-and-solar...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/excessive-subsidies-for...

 

APPENDIX 9

Electricity Moves as Electro-Magnetic Waves at Nearly the Speed of Light

 

Electricity Mix Based on Power Purchase Agreements 

There are non-technical people talking about the “Vermont electricity mix” or the “New Hampshire electricity mix”. That mix exists only on paper, because it is based on power purchase agreements, PPAs, between utilities and owners of electricity generators.

 

If a utility claims it is 100% renewable, it has PPAs with owners of renewable generators, i.e. wind, solar, biomass, hydro, etc. That mix has nothing to do with physical reality.

 

If a utility did not have PPAs and drew electricity from the grid, it would be stealing, just as a person would be by bypassing the utility electric meter.

 

Entities, such as VT-DPS, should not use PPAs to calculate the CO2 of the VT electricity sector and CO2/kWh

 

Electricity Mix Based on Physics

Once electricity is fed into the NE electric grid by any generator, it travels:

 

- On un-insulated wires, as electromagnetic waves at somewhat less than the speed of light, i.e., from northern Maine to southern Florida, about 1800 miles in 0.01 of a second

- On insulated wires, the speed decreases to as low as 2/3 the speed of light, depending on the application.

 

If those speeds were not that high, the NE electric grid would not work, and modern electronics would not work.

 

The electrons vibrate at 60 cycles/second, 60 Hz, and travel at less than 0.1 inch/second; the reason it takes so long to charge a battery.

 

It is unfortunate most high school teachers told students the electrons were traveling.

Teachers likely never told them about EM waves

 

http://www.djtelectricaltraining.co.uk/downloads/50Hz-Frequency.pdf

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/popular-misconceptions-...

 

Entities, such as VT-DPS, should use the ISO-NE estimated CO2/kWh, at wall meters, to calculate CO2 of the VT electricity sector and CO2/kWh

 

Living Off the Grid

 

- If you live off the grid, have your own PV system, batteries, and generator for shortages and emergencies, then you use your own electricity mix.

- If you draw electricity from a wall socket, you draw the NE mix

 

APPENDIX 10

Highly Sealed, Highly Insulated House

In 2008, Transformations Inc., Townsend, MA, was chosen among six builders to participate in the state’s investor-owned utilities Zero Energy Challenge, a competition to encourage builders to plan and develop a home with a HERS Index below 35 before December 2009.

 

Carter Scott, President of Transformations, Inc. brought together a team of design and energy experts to not only meet the challenge, but to figure out how to get all the way to zero, while still building an affordable, new house. The team designed a three-bedroom 1,232-sq ft house, called the “Needham," which has a “- 4” HERS rating, i.e., the home is producing more energy than it is using. Sales price: $195,200 in 2009

https://www.buildingscience.com/sites/default/files/2011-03-08%20NE...

 

Major Design Features:

 

Roof (R75): 5 inches of high-density polyurethane foam, HDF, and 13 inches of high-density cellulose all along the slope of the second-floor roof rafters; 2 x 12s and a 2 x 4s held off by 3 inches for a thermal break separation 
Walls (R49): 2 x 4 outside wall; added a second 2 x 4 wall for a total depth of 12 inches; filled 3 inches with HDF and 9 inches with cellulose 
Basement Ceiling: 3 inches of HDF and a layer of R-30 fiberglass batts 
Windows: Paradigm triple-pane model with Low-E and krypton gas 
Heating/Cooling: Two Mitsubishi Mr. Slim mini-split, ductless, ASHPs

Ventilation: Lifebreath 155 ECM Energy Recovery Ventilator 

Leakage: About 175 cfm at 50 pascal, per blower door test (or 284 cfm for a 2000 sq ft house. See table 8)
Solar: Evergreen Solar’s 30 Spruce Line 190-watt PV panels to create a 6.4-kW system;

Hot Water: SunDrum Solar’s DHW heating system

Heat Loss: About 10,500 Btu/h, at 70F indoor, 6F outdoor (or 2000/1232 x 75 delta T/64 delta T x 10500 = 19,975 Btu/h for a 2000 sq ft house, at 65F indoor and -10F outdoor, in Vermont)

APPENDIX 11

CO2 of Gasoline and E10

E10 fuel (90% gasoline/10% ethanol) has a source energy, which is reduced due to exploration, extraction, processing and transport, to become the primary energy fed to E10 vehicles. See URL.

http://www.patagoniaalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/How-muc...

 

Burning E10 (90% gasoline/10% Ethanol) = 0.9 x 19.569 + 0.1 x 12.720 = 18.884 lb/gal

Upstream = 0.9 x 4.892 + 0.1 x 13.556 = 5.759 lb/gal

 

Total = 24.643 lb/gal, if CO2 of ethanol fraction in gasoline (aka, gasohol, or E10) is counted.

Total = 24.643 - 1.272 = 23.371 lb/gal, if not counted.

 

Table G/Fuel CO2	Combustion	Upstream	Total
	lb CO2/gal	lb CO2/gal	lb CO2/gal
Burning pure gasoline	19.569
Upstream = 25% of combustion, per EPA		4.892
Total			24.461
Burning pure ethanol	12.720
Cropping, processing, blending		13.556
Total			26.276
Burning E10 (90/10)	18.884
Upstream		5.759
Total, if ethanol CO2 is counted			24.643
Total, if ethanol CO2 is not counted	17.612	5.759	23.371
.
Burning pure diesel	22.456
Upstream = 27% of combustion, per EPA		6.063
Total			28.519
Burning pure biodiesel, B100, soy oil	20.130
Upstream = 43% of combustion		8.656
Total, if biodiesel CO2 is counted			28.786
Total, if biodiesel CO2 is not counted			8.656
Burning B20 (80/20)	21.991
Upstream		6.582
Total, if biodiesel CO2 is counted			28.572
Total, if biodiesel CO2 is not counted	17.965	6.582	24.546

 

APPENDIX 12

The Prius Prime, plug-in hybrid, 8.8 kWh battery, partial AWD, travels about 25 miles on the battery, after which it functions as any other Prius.

Summer weather increases the 25-mile range and winter weather reduces it.

Total range about 640 miles.

Owners, with short commutes, need not buy any gasoline for months.

They only need to plug-in every day.

 

Per EPA, (33.7 kWh/gal-eq)/(133 mpg-eq) = 0.259 kWh/mile, WM basis; includes charging losses

Adjusted to 0.259 x 1.055, loss factor = 0.267 mile/kWh, WM basis; includes 1) charging loss, 2) self-use losses due to heating, cooling, electronics, etc., and 3) losses due to NE road/climate conditions, 4) losses due to idle time, such as parked at an airport. (Items 2, 3 and 4 are not measured by EPA)

 

On average, electricity use would be 25 x 0.267 = 6.675 kWh to travel 25 miles each day, WM basis.

 

Battery rated capacity is 8.8 kWh, DC, i.e., about 65% is utilized, because the battery control system renders the top and bottom 15% as off limits to extend battery life. The middle portion has the most efficient charging and discharging.

 

https://web.mit.edu/evt/summary_battery_specifications.pdf

https://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/bu_1003a_battery_aging_...

 

Daily Commuting Cost

 

Commuting cost for 25 miles with a Prime would be 6.675 x $0.19/kWh = $1.27/day.

Commuting cost for 25 miles with a 30-mpg gasoline vehicle would be 25/30 x $2.50/gal = $2.08/day

 

Lifetime CO2

 

Lifetime CO2 of Prime would be about 26.49 Mt/105600 miles

Lifetime CO2 of 30-mpg vehicle would be about 43.02 Mt/105600 miles

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Prius_Plug-in_Hybrid

https://calevip.org/electric-vehicle-charging-101

 

Table H/2020 Prius	Standard	Eco L	Prime, AWD
Plug-in	no	no	yes
Battery packs	2	2	5
Pack arrangement	parallel	parallel	series
Cells/pack	28	28	19
Cells	56	56	95
Cell energy, Ah	3.6	3.6	25
Battery energy, Ah = cells x 3.6	201.6	201.6	2375
Cell voltage, V	3.7	3.7	3.7
Battery voltage, V = 28 x 3.7	103.6	103.6
Battery voltage, V = 95 x 3.7			351.5
Battery capacity, kWh = V x Ah/1000	0.746	0.746	8.788
City	54	58	52
Highway	50	53	48
Combined	52	56	50

 

APPENDIX 13

WIND, SOLAR AND HYDRO

 

If massive build-outs of heavily subsidized wind and solar were to occur (at great expense and environmental damage), which would have upstream CO2 emissions, electric grids would gradually become “cleaner”, i.e., have less CO2/kWh.

 

That approach would take decades, plus the variable, intermittent, grid disturbing, electricity from:

 

1) Large-scale, ridge-line wind (competitively bid) would be charged to the rate base at about 9 c/kWh, if grid support costs and subsidy costs were shifted to ratepayers, taxpayers and debt; about 18.8 c/kWh, if no cost shifting,

 

2) New large-scale solar (competitively bid) would be charged to the rate base at about 11.8 c/kWh, if grid support costs and subsidy costs were shifted to ratepayers, taxpayers and debt; about 23.5 c/kWh, if no cost shifting,

 

3) Residential net-metered solar would be charged to the rate base at about 21.813 c/kWh, if grid support costs and subsidy costs were shifted to ratepayers, taxpayers and debt; about 25.5 c/kWh, if no cost shifting.

 

All those prices are much higher in NE than most elsewhere in the US, because of poor wind/solar conditions in NE. See table 5A, which uses data from:

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fortress-vermont-a-mult...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-na...

 

Table I/Vermont & NE sources	Total	Grid support	Subsidies	Paid to	GMP	Added to
	cost	cost	to owner	owner	adder	rate base
	c/kWh	c/kWh	c/kWh	c/kWh	c/kWh	c/kWh
Solar, residential rooftop, net-metered	25.5	2.1	5.4	18.0	3.8	21.8
Solar, com’l/ind’l, legacy, standard offer	34.4	2.1	10.5	21.8	?	21.8
Solar, com’l/ind’l, new, standard offer*	23.5	2.1	9.6	11.8	?	11.8
Wind, ridge line, new*	18.8	2.4	7.4	9.0	?	9.0
.
Gas, combined cycle, existing				5.0
Gas, combined cycle, new				6.0
Gas, open cycle, peaking, existing				15.0
Nuclear, existing				5.0
Nuclear, new				10.0
Coal, existing				5.0
Coal, new				10.0
Hydro, existing				5.0
Hydro, net metered, new				10.0
Wood burning, net-metered, existing				10.0

 

* Competitive bidding lowered prices paid to owners.

 

The NE wholesale price has averaged at less than 5 c/kWh, starting in 2009

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-na...

 

Importing more low-cost hydro (about 5.549 c/kWh, per GMP) from Quebec to replace “dangerous nuclear” and “dirty fossil” would be a very quick, smart and economic way to reduce CO2.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/gmp-refusing-to-buy-add...