VERMONT IS GOING TO HELL IN A HANDBASKET REGARDING FOOLISH ENERGY SYSTEMS

The "Global Warming Solutions Act" bill was passed by the House Energy and Technology Committee on a 7-2 vote and moved to the House Appropriations Committee, which rubber-stamped the bill. A House vote passed the bill, 105 - 37, a few days later. The Senate is next to vote.

 

GWSA converts the CO2 aspirational goals of the Comprehensive Energy Plan, CEP, to legal mandates. 

GWSA requires state government to come up with rules, regulations and programs to implement the CEP.

GWSA sets up a legislatively controlled Council to:

 

- Create a plan to achieve the legal mandates of the CEP.

- Direct the Agency of Natural Resources, ANR, Department of Public Service, DPS, etc., to issue whatever binding rules and regulations they think are needed to carry out the Council’s plan.

 

The Legislature controls a Council by appointing a bunch of yes-men?

The yes-men will rubber-stamp whatever the government entities come up with?

 

The Legislature will vote for the funds to implement each binding rule and regulation?

The Council will vote for the funds to implement each binding rule and regulation?

 

Legislators would not vote on each far-reaching rules and regulations that would affect every household and business?

What if the Council decides to ruin pristine ridgelines for wind turbines to “fulfill the CEP”?

 

Table 1
Stage	CO2 Reduction, %	Million Mt	Million Mt
1	2025, 26% reduction relative to 2005 (Paris Climate Agreement)	10.240 in 2005	7.578 in 2025
2	2030, 40% reduction relative to 1990 (CEP)	8.650 in 1990	5.190 in 2030
3	2050, 80% reduction relative to 1990 (CEP)	8.650 in 1990	1.730 in 2050

 

CEP: The capital cost for implementing the CEP would be in excess of $1.0 billion/y for at least 33 years, according to the Energy Action Network annual report. See URLs.

 

http://eanvt.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/EAN-2015-Annual-Report-... 

https://outside.vermont.gov/sov/webservices/Shared%20Documents/2016...

 

Spending on government energy programs, including Efficiency Vermont, has averaged about $210 million/y from 2000 to 2015, but Vermont CO2 emissions increased 18% from1990 to 2015.

GWSA will become a Global Warming Spending Act, which benefits the RE entities, at the expense of all other Vermonters.

- We need a Tsunami of votes in November 2022 to overwhelm the shenanigans of universal harvesting of ballots, surely to occur after the CONDOS universal mail-out of ballots.

- We have to oust the entrenched Legislators and career bureaucrats who are in cahoots with these RE entities.

GMP Buys More Nuclear and Hydro to Reduce CO2

 

GMP contracted to purchase significantly more no-particulate, very-low-CO2, very-low-cost, nuclear electricity from Seabrook Nuclear for 2018, and beyond.

 

GMP contracted to purchase significantly more no-particulate, very-low-CO2, very-low-cost, hydro electricity for 2017, and beyond.

 

GMP, by merely signing contract papers, and without making physical changes to its operations that would reduce CO2, gets credit for significantly reducing CO2 of electricity sold to ratepayers.

 

NOTE:

- VT-DPS claims CO2 emissions of the electricity sector at 34 g/kWh for 2018, based on “paper” power purchase agreements, PPAs. It is an artificial/political value that has absolutely nothing to do with physical reality.

- ISO-NE calculates CO2 emissions of the NE grid at 339 g/kWh for 2015, based on 1) CO2 of fuel combustion. See Appendix and 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...

 

More Wind, Solar and Storage Harmful for Vermont: GMP will 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...

 

Table 2/Year	1990	2000	2015	2016	2017, est.	2018, est.
CO2-eq	Million Mt	Million Mt	Million Mt	Million Mt	Million Mt	Million Mt
Electrical sector	1.09	0.43	1.00	0.81	0.49	0.19
All sectors	8.65	9.70	10.19	9.76	9.41	9.02
% above 1990		12	18	13	9	4
			g/kWh	g/kWh	g/kWh	g/kWh
VT-DPS CO2, based on PPAs			180	146	88	34
ISO-NE CO2, based on fuel combustion		415	339	322	310	299

Comments Regarding GWSA, Stage 1:

- The CO2 reduction by 2025 is not just about enlarging state government by adding scores of employees to various state and local governments for managing expanded existing energy programs and adding new energy programs.

- The rapid CO2 reduction would be extremely disruptive to ongoing economic activities, i.e., impose significant additional costs (increased taxes and additional subsidies and investments to implement mandates) on the private sector, exactly the opposite of what has been needed for about 2 decades.

- The CO2 reduction would require adding several hundred million dollars each year, to state and local government budgets, to:

 

- Manage expanded existing programs and implement new ones.

- Distribute subsidies, mostly to RE entities.

- Implement regulations and monitor mandated adjustments in lifestyles

 

NOTE: The RE sector of the Vermont economy, including government, would be celebrating and enjoying long-term expansion, prosperity and security. All other sectors would be mourning their losses and insecurity, all while climate change continued as usual.

- VT CO2 emissions have been increasing during recent years, due to existing government programs, costing money and increasing everyone’s costs, not being effective at decreasing CO2.

- Any new government programs, started in haste, would need to immediately reverse the increasing CO2 trend, plus bend the curve down to achieve a lower level, i.e., from about 9.02 million Mt in 2020 to 7.578 million Mt in 2025, a daunting task. 

 

NOTE: The rapid increase in effectiveness of existing and new programs would happen with essentially the same career-bureaucrats and career-legislators?

- Vermont’s CO2 was 10.24 million Mt in 2005, 10.19 million Mt in 2015, and 9.02 million Mt in 2018. The reductions in 2017 and 2018 were mainly due to increased nuclear and hydro purchases by GMP.

- The rapid CO2 reduction is no more than wishful dreaming by career-bureaucrats and career-legislators, who want to have a “second go at it”, and “double-down” by spending $400 million/y for each of the next 5 years, plus more per year thereafter. 

  

THREE TOPICS ABOUT GSWA AND FORTRESS VERMONT

 

Part 1 deals with air source heat pumps, ASHPs, not economically providing space heat, if installed in energy-hog houses

Part 2 deals with electric vehicles having about as much CO2 as efficient gasoline vehicles, if compared on a lifetime basis.

Part 3 deals with the Fortress Vermont fantasy of 100% in-state energy generation, mostly with wind, solar and storage.  

 

PART 1

 

CEP CO2 GOALS FOR BUILDING SPACE HEAT FROM ASHPs ARE UNATTAINABLE 

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

 

CEP Goals for Building Space Heat and Domestic Hot Water

 

63% from renewable electricity (wind, solar, hydro, biomass, etc.)

34% from wood burning (cordwood/pellet) and bio liquids.

3% from fossil fuels burning.

The CEP has a goal to install about 35,000 air source heat pumps, ASHPs, by 2025. 

Energy Action Network has a super-unrealistic goal to "meet Paris by 2025"

 

Table 2A/ASHPs	CEP goal		EAN goal
			"Meet Paris"
Year	Start of year	Added
2016	6652	4118
2017	10770	4161
2018*	14931	2786
2019	17717	2881
2020	20598	2881
2021	23479	2881
2022	26360	2881
2023	29241	2881
2024	32122	2881
2025	35003		90000

* In 2018, 2786; CADMUS survey report appeared in November 2017 with bad news for ASHPs.

 

CADMUS proved, the average annual energy cost savings were only $200, which is much less than the $1000 - $1800 bandied about by GMP, Efficiency Vermont, VPIRG, etc., on a turnkey investment of about $4500 per ASHP, that would last at most 15 years. If other costs were added (amortizing, service calls, parts, etc.), owners would have an annual loss.

CEP 63% Goal Using ASHPs is Unattainable: Vermont has about 265,000 households, of which:

 

About 97,000 use cordwood/pellets for a part or all of space heat.

About 65,000 use cordwood/pellets as primary fuel for space heat.

About 190,000 use No. 2 fuel oil, propane or natural gas as primary fuel for space heat. 

About 10,000 use electricity as primary energy for space heat.

  

About 88,000 of Vermont's 100,000 free-standing houses would need major energy retrofits, at a cost of about $30,000 per house ($2.7 billion), to reduce their space heat to less than 30,000 Btu/h, at 65F indoor and -10F outdoor, to make them economically suitable for 100% space heat from ASHPs.

 

After major retrofit, each house would need ASHP capacity of at least 30,000 Btu/h, at -10F, or about 65,000 Btu/h at 47F, at a cost of about $20,000 ($1.8 billion), for 100% space heat from ASHPs.

 

About 59,000 of Vermont's 66,950 housing units (apartments, condos, etc.) with ASHPs would need the same upgrades. See table 1B.

 

Buildings also require DHW, space cooling, and electricity.

 

Table 1B/Housing units	Existing	Existing	Future, per CEP		Future
Source	Description	Units	Source	%	Units
Cordwood/pellets	Primary fuel for space heat	65,000	Cordwood/pellets/biofuels	34	90,100
No. 2 fuel oil, propane or natural gas	Primary fuel for space heat	190,000	ASHPs	63	166,950
Electricity	Primary energy for space heat	10,000	Fossil	3	7,950
Total		265,000		100	265,000

Vermont Needs to Enact and Enforce a Strict Building Energy Code

 

If Vermont, etc., had enacted and enforced a strict energy code for building in about 1990, or sooner (as many northern European countries did), there would be tens of thousands of houses and other buildings in Vermont that could be economically heated with ASHPs, but Vermont, etc., did not!

 

Space heat demands of Vermont houses are shown in table 3.

 

ASHPs in WS/WI and HS/HI and Passivhaus houses would economically provide 100% of space heat from 65F to -10F. 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/air-source-heat-pumps-a...

Table 3/Vermont	Built		Area	Htg. Demand	Pk. Demand	Times	Air Leak	ACH
Unsuitable for ASHPs		%	ft2	(Btu/h)/ft2	Btu/h at -10F*	Passiv	ft3/min	@ -50 pascal
Typical older house	1750 - 1990	68.4	2000	40.0	80,000	12.6	2667	10.0
Newer house	1990 - 2000	10.0	2000	24.0	48,000	7.6	1600	6.0
Newer house, IECC	2000 - 2012	10.0	2000	20.0	40,000	6.3	1867	7.0
Suitable for ASHPs
"WS/WI house", IECC+	2012 - 2021	10.0	2000	15.0	30,000	4.7	800	<3.0
“HS/HI house”, IECC++	2000 - present	1.5	2000	8.5	17,000	2.7	400	<1.5
Passivhaus, IECC+++	1985 - present	0.1	2000	3.2	6,348	1.0	160	<0.6
		100.0

 

Household Capital Cost to Partially Implement the CEP

 

Up-scale household, in a 2000 sq ft house, making periodic investments to “save the world”. 

 

Table 4/ “Save the World” investments	Cost, $	Life, y
EV, Tesla Model Y, 4-wd; range 315 miles; small SUV	59,000	10
Energy upgrade, insulation, sealing, windows, doors, etc.	30,000	100
ASHP capacity for 100% space heat at -10F	20,000	10 to 15
Solar panels, 6 kW, production 7500 kWh/y	20,000	25 to 30
Batteries for outages	8,000	10
Total per household	137,000
Total all households, excludes financing costs and subsidies	16.75 billion

 

Weatherizing Housing Units Reduces Minimal CO2 at High Cost

 

In 2017, about 2012 housing units were weatherized, for about $20 million, about $10,000/unit.

CO2 reduction about 6 million lb/y, or 2716 Mt/y.

 

Assuming the older houses would last another 30 years, the CO2 reduction cost would be $19.75 million/(2716 Mt/y x 30y) = $242/Mt, which is high. See URL, page 31

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

  

Because these units had a fuel use reduction averaging 23%, does not mean they are out of energy-hog territory, i.e., they likely would still be unsuitable for economic, 100%-space-heat from ASHPs. See table 3.

 

The rate of weatherizing is far too slow, and not "deep" enough, for the CEP 63% goal of space heating of all buildings using only ASHPs. See table 3

 

A new approach, hopefully not involving government and Efficiency Vermont, is needed.

 

1) Entire neighborhoods, with old houses, would need to be leveled for replacement with modern Passivhaus buildings.

2) A new statewide, enforced, building code is required. See table 14 on page 30 of above legislature URL.

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

 

Table 4A/Weatherized housing units	2012
Average fuel reduction, %	23
Cost, subsidies, $	11,083,404
Cost, owners, $	8,666,786
Total cost, $	19,750,190
Cost/unit, $	9816
.
CO2 reduction, lb	5,988,367
CO2 reduction, Mt/y	2716
CO2 reduction, $/Mt, based on 30-y life	242

PART 2

 

CEP CO2 GOALS FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLES ARE UNATTAINABLE

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

 

Go to any Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, etc., parking lot and you see at least 60% SUVs, crossovers and pick-up trucks.

 

People own these vehicles to drive on snowy, icy, hilly, pothole, muddy, rutted roads during cold winter.

Pure EVs would lose up to 40% of their already-limited range during these adverse conditions.

A full-battery, 200-mile range, could become 120 miles.

 

At current EV marketing/production rates, it would take at least 5 more years before a variety of EVs would be available to suit the requirements of NE drivers.

 

NOTE: Tesla will start delivery of its all-wheel-drive Model Y, a small SUV, same chassis as the Model 3. The long-range version, 315 miles, required in Vermont, etc., would cost $52,990, plus destination & docs $1200, sales tax $3180, installed wall-mounted charger $1,500, a total of about $58,780. 

https://www.tesla.com/modely/design#payment

 

The EV cost is out of reach for about 90% of households in Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, etc.

 

Why do career-legislators/career-bureaucrats not understand this?

The people who voted them into office do not have the money for those fantasy goals, grabbed out of a hat by cabals of career-legislators/career-bureaucrats, who:

 

- Usually have near-zero technical education and experience in energy systems design and analysis.

- Hype EVs to voters, despite their known performance shortcomings and high costs.

- Advocate giving more state subsidies to mostly up-scale households to get them to buy EVs.

REAL-WORLD CO2 REDUCTION OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES, LIFETIME BASIS 

 

Lifetime evaluations of EVs versus gasoline vehicles have been performed for at least 25 years. All show EVs would reduce very little CO2 compared with efficient LDVs, using existing energy sources.

https://www.iso-ne.com/about/key-stats/resource-mix/

 

Engineers, including at EAN, very well know, a proper evaluation of EVs versus gasoline vehicles has to be on a lifetime basis, such as the 105,600 miles for 8 years used in this article, plus the evaluation must be based on:

 

1) Source energy = upstream + primary energy; EAN ignored upstream

2) Actual CO2/kWh of NE grid, per ISO-NE; EAN used an artificial/concocted value

3) Embodied CO2/kWh of the vehicle body and battery; EAN ignored embodied

4) Long-term wall meter and vehicle meter readings, obtained during real-world driving conditions.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/comparison-of-tesla-mod...

 

Base Vehicle: The popular Nissan Leaf, 62 kWh, was used as base vehicle for comparison with four other vehicles

EPA rated at 118, city/97, highway/108, combined

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymake/Nissan2020.shtml

 

(33.7 kWh/gal-eq)/(108 mpg-eq) = 0.299 kWh/mile; includes charging losses

Adjusted to 0.299 x 1.055, loss factor* = 0.315 mile/kWh; 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 in a garage, or at an airport.

* The loss factor covers items 2, 3 and 4, which are not measured by EPA

 

Comparison Vehicles:

Toyota Prius L Eco hybrid, 56 mpg

Mitsubishi Mirage gasoline vehicle, 39 mpg

Medium gasoline vehicle, 30 mpg

“Vermont LDV gasoline mix”, 22.7 mpg

 

Other Parameters:

- CO2, tailpipe plus upstream = 23.371 lb/gal; combustion CO2 of corn ethanol in gasoline is not counted 

- CO2, electricity = 356 g/kWh, per ISO-NE

 

Result of Analysis: EAN claims 90,000 EVs, purchased during 2020 – 2025, or 18,000/y, would reduce CO2 by 405,000 Mt/y in 2025. That claim is based on false assumptions. See Note.

 

This lifetime analysis found, to reduce CO2 by 405,000 Mt in 2025:

 

- About 4.50/3.58 x 90000 = 113,128 EVs would be needed during 2020 – 2025, each reducing about 3.580 Mt/y, if “LDV gasoline mix” vehicles were replaced, which is unlikely, because the required “LDV mix as EVs” likely would not yet be marketed during 2020 – 2025. Also, the larger 4WD-SUVs, ¼-ton-pick-ups, and minivans, with 80 to 100 kWh batteries, would be prohibitively expensive for Vermonters.

 

- About 4.50/1.92 x 90000 = 210,938 EVs would be needed during 2020 – 2025, each reducing about 1.920 Mt/y, if medium gas vehicles (averaging 30-mpg) were replaced, which is far more likely, because small and medium EVs are marketed, affordable (with federal and state subsidies) and bought by Vermonters. See Note and table 3

 

NOTE: Vermont total registered plug-in vehicles was 3716 in January 2020, of which about 60% were plug-in hybrids and 40% were pure EVs. The total increase was 674 in 2018 and 753 in 2019, about 1.6% of Vermont total new vehicle registrations. See URL

https://www.driveelectricvt.com/Media/Default/docs/maps/vt_ev_regis...

 

NOTE: The deceptive/fraudulent EAN method overstated the CO2 reduction of EVs by 4.50/1.92 = 234% compared to the lifetime method. Such fraudulent methods are known to almost all energy systems engineers, including EAN engineers.

 

NOTE: Eco-conscious persons, who would buy EVs, likely already drive higher-mileage gasoline vehicles. Just ask them what they drove before buying an EV.

 

Capital Cost

Cost for EVs; about 210,938 x $40000/medium EV = $8.483 billion

Cost for private and public chargers; about 210,938 x $1500 = $0.318 billion

Total = 8.483 + 0.316 = $8.801 billion

 

Comment: It should be abundantly clear why EAN engineers chose to:

- Consider only the combustion CO2 of the fuel and electricity, plus use flawed values, plus use unmatched vehicles (apples to oranges), because they knew that approach would have high CO2 reduction/EV, compared to gasoline vehicles, which would fit the RE narrative of the EV-hyping strategy.

 

- Shy away from lifetime analysis, that includes upstream CO2, combustion CO2 and embodied CO2, plus uses realistic values, plus uses matched vehicles (apples to apples), because that approach would have low CO2 reduction/EV, compared to efficient gasoline vehicles, which would not fit the RE narrative of the EV-hyping strategy.

 

Table 5/Lifetime CO2, SE basis	Toyota	Nissan	Mitsubishi	Any mfr.	Any mfr.
	Prius	Leaf
	Med. car	Med. SUV	Small car	Med. SUV	VT LDV mix
Model	L Eco		Mirage
Type	Hybrid	EV	Gasoline	Gasoline	Gasoline
Plug-in	no	yes	no	no	no
Battery, kWh	0.75	62	no	no	no
Travel, miles	105600	105600	105600	105600	105600
EPA combined, WM basis, mpg	56		39	30	22.7
EPA combined, WM basis, kWh/mile		0.315
NE grid CO2, WM basis, g/kWh		356
E10, combustion, CO2 of ethanol not counted, lb CO2/gal	17.612		17.612	17.612	17.612
E10, upstream for extract, process, transport, lb CO2/gal	5.759		5.759	5.759	5.759
E10, total, CO2 of ethanol not counted, lb CO2/gal	23.371		23.371	23.371	23.371
.
CO2	Mt	Mt	Mt	Mt	Mt
E10, combustion, CO2 of ethanol not counted	15.06		21.63	28.12	37.16
E10, upstream for extract, process, transport	4.93		7.07	9.20	12.15
Electricity, WM basis, kWh		11.92
Body, with extract, process, fabrication, assembly, transport*	5.70	5.70	5.70	5.70	7.00
Li battery, with extract, process, fabrication, assembly, transport*	0.80	10.10
Total	26.49	27.72	34.40	43.02	56.32
		Mt/y	Mt/y	Mt/y	Mt/y
CO2 reduction Mt/y		-0.15	0.84	1.92	3.58

* Numbers are partly based on Hall and Lutsey and on Hausfather at carbonbrief.org factcheck, adapted for Vermont conditions.

PART 3

 

FORTRESS VERMONT; a $1.2 billion PARTIAL cost of transition to 100% IN-STATE renewable energy generation

http://www.truenorthreports.com/1-2-billion-partial-cost-of-transit...

FORTRESS VERMONT involves having battery and liquid air electricity storage, LAES, systems to store the variable, intermittent, grid-disturbing electricity of wind and solar, that is expensive, requires high subsidies, and requires expensive storage, so the smoothed-out electricity can actually be fed into electric grids without excessively disturbing them. 

If no storage, if the wind/solar electricity would threaten to excessively disturb the grids, curtailment would be ordered by ISO-NE

 

Storage Losses  

In and out of battery storage loss about 20%, on a HV to HV basis.

In and out of LAES, about 30%, on a HV to HV basis.

Solar, if a major part of 100% in-state RE generation: The large quantities of stored electricity, generated during midday hours, would be available during late-afternoon/early-evening  hours, while solar is minimal or asleep.

 

Wind, if a major part of 100% in-state RE generation: The large quantities of stored electricity, generated by sporadic winds, that frequently are entirely absent, would be available as needed by demand.

 

Existing In-State Generation 

 

In 2018, Vermont in-state generation was 26.7% of electricity fed to the Vermont grid.

About 903,535 MWh was existing prior to 2000, before any government energy programs. See table 8 and first URL page 55

 

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

https://vermontstandardoffer.com/standard-offer/program-overview/

https://vermontstandardoffer.com/ryegate/monthly-production/

 

ISO-NE states 364.24 MW ac end 2019 on page 15 of URL

https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2020/04/final_2020_p...

 

ISO-NE states ac, but other sources do not. Here are two examples.

 

SEIA states 351.66 MW dc end 2019

https://www.seia.org/state-solar-policy/vermont-solar

 

Wiki states 355 MW dc end 2019

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Vermont

 

PV solar generation was about 364.24 x 8766 x 0.137 = 437,431 MWh in 2019.

 

The ISO-NE estimated value is 408 GWh. See note and page 41 of URL

https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2020/04/final_2020_p...

 

NOTE: The CP = 0.137 is based on state average monthly capacity factors (CF) developed from 6 years of PV performance data (2014-

2019). 

 

NOTE: In the real world, NE PV systems: 1) have various ages (output decreases with age), 2) may not be oriented “solar south”, 180-degrees, 3) are not at the correct tilt angle, 4) could have dirty panels, 5) could be partially shaded, 6) could be snow/ice-covered, and 7) could be “down” for maintenance, etc.

 

Table 8/VT In-state generation, fed to grid basis	2000	2000 – 2018	2018	2018
	Existing	New added	Total	Standard Offer
Energy Source	MWh	MWh	MWh	c/kWh
Hydro, VT-DPS Utility Facts 2013	491,878	21,305	513,183	13.0
Solar, per ISO-NE; 2009		437,431	437,431	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	697,837	1,601,372
VT total fed to grid, MWh	6,000,000	6,000,000	6,000,000
VT in-state, %	15.1	11.6	26.7
Vermont Yankee, nuclear, closed in 2015	4,733,640	4,733,640
Out-of-state purchases, incl. HQ, MWh			4,398,628
HQ, MWh			1,300,000	5.5
ISO-NE annual average				5.0

Cost Shifting the Name of the Game

 

1) NET-METERED CHARGED TO THE RATE BASE AT ABOUT 21.8 c/kWh

 

“GMP estimated the 263,515 MWh of net-metered generation (almost all of it solar, but also including minor quantities of small hydro, small wind, etc.) in its customer area will lead to $33 million in cost shifting, from solar system owners to non-owner ratepayers, in 2020, equivalent to 5% of its total annual cost of serving customers.”

https://vtdigger.org/2019/11/13/in-net-metering-talks-state-ideals-...

 

Total Vermont net-metered solar was about 299,156 MWh at end 2019, likely about 10% greater in 2020.

That means total solar cost shifting for in 2020 would be about (299,156 x 1.1)/265,515 x 33 million = $40.9 million  

 

2) SPECIAL OFFER CHARGED TO THE RATE BASE AT 21.8 c/kWh

 

Special Offer likely would have about $30 million in cost shifting, including due to high subsidies and high feed-in tariffs, about 11 c/kWh (recent systems), up to 30 c/kWh (older systems), paid to the millionaire owners in 2020.

 

3) EFFICIENCY VERMONT

 

All this cost shifting is on top of the $60 million/y added to electric bills for the utter-boondoggle, called Efficiency Vermont.

About 90% of what EV does would have happened anyway, because people are not stupid, when it comes to saving money.

 

4) NE WHOLESALE PRICES

 

The NE wholesale prices have averaged about 5 c/kWh starting in 2009, i.e., 11 years.

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

Future 100% In-State Generation?

  

2000 - 2018

Adding 12.7% of new in-state renewable electricity cost about $2.0 - $2.5 billion.

Average electricity addition rate was about 12.7%/18y = 0.71%/y.

Cost was about $2.25 billion/12.7% = $177 million/% of new in-state.

This was relatively easy, because it mostly was "low-hanging fruit", with little energy storage

2018 -2050 

Increasing from 27.8% in-state in 2018 to 100% in-state by 2050, would be a Herculean feat to accomplish in 32 years

Average electricity addition rate would be about 72.2%/32y = 2.26%/y.

Cost about $550 million/y, until about 2030, because of expensive, large-scale, energy storage; more per year after 2030.

Major acceleration of everything and many $billions of spending would be required.

 

Capital Cost for 100% In-State Generation

 

Generating (6.0, fed to VT grid - 1.667, existing in-state) = 4.333 billion kWh/y of new in-state RE electricity, mostly wind and solar, would require capital costs for:

1) Wind/solar generation capacity on pristine ridge lines and open lands; large-scale electricity storage; and large-scale grid extension/augmentation. Losses associated with storage would require additional wind/solar generation to offset them.

2) Additional wind/solar generation capacity on pristine ridge lines and open lands; large-scale electricity storage; and large-scale grid extension/augmentation would be required to power:

 

- At least 300,000 EVs for 265,000 households; about 300,000 x 12000 miles x 0.350 kWh/mile = 1.26 billion kWh/y

- At least 400,000 ASHPs for about 175,000 households; 2 to 3 ASHPs per household for 100% heat; about 175,000 x 8607 kWh = 1.51 billion kWh/y

 

- About 85,000 households would use cordwood/wood pellets or biofuels, or electric resistance heating.

- ASHPs usually do not provide heat for DHW, i.e., separate systems would be required.

3) Major upgrading (“deep retrofits”) of the energy efficiency of at least 88% of all buildings in Vermont.

 

All that would cost tens of billions of dollars and have enormous environmental consequences in Vermont.

 

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

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

Forcing Utilities to Buy More In-State Generated Electricity

 

Recently, career-bureaucrats and career-legislators proposed to force utilities to buy 20% of their retail sales from new in-state generation by 2030, which would primarily be expensive, sporadic, wind and solar.

 

The 20% mandate would be an increase from the existing 10% mandate.

RE proponents are pressing legislators for 20%, using various scare-mongering tactics.

See table 8 for high electricity c/kWh

Would that not cost many billions of dollars for rate payers and for the overall Vermont economy?

Many legislators, up for re-election, are objecting. See URLs.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-of-boosting-renewa...

GERMANY

 

Germany built a lot of solar and wind systems, plus has strong connections to nearby grids. That way any excess or shortage of solar/wind electricity (due to the vagaries of winds blowing and sun shining) is balanced by electricity flows to and from the German grid.

 

As a result, Germany requires very little grid-scale storage, which would be insanely expensive, and would adversely affect 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.

 

Germany and Denmark have the highest household electric rates in Europe, about 30 c/kWh.

DENMARK

 

Denmark does exactly the same. It could never have as much wind as it has, if it were not for the strong connections to Norway, Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands and Germany. 

IRELAND

 

Ireland, a windy country, had an island grid, similar to New England. Brussels provided subsidies for strong connections with the larger UK and French grids to counteract the ups and downs of Irish wind electricity; no storage was required and more wind turbines were installed.

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.

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

 

LAES Systems: However, this about LAES and battery storage systems in northeast Vermont, because future 600-ft tall wind turbine systems on pristine, 2000-ft-high ridge lines are “planned” for that sparsely populated area, which has low electricity demand.

 

The high electricity demand is in the west side of Vermont, i.e., Manchester, Burlington, Montpelier, Rutland, etc.

 

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 storage systems serve to reduce the disturbances that wind electricity would otherwise impose on the weak NEK grid.

 

Clean Energy Development Fund, CEDF, likely would grant 50% or more of any capital cost required to build 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.

 

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

 

No other state is aiming to be a “FORTRESS” regarding renewable energy

 

All is just a ploy to get money, extracted from tax payers, so CEDF can distribute largesse throughout the state to favored folks, such as the politically well-connected RE companies.

 

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

 

1) The grand stupidity of ASHPs in energy-hog houses; owners have annual losses and little CO2 is reduced.

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

 

2) EVs replacing gasoline vehicles; much less CO2 is reduced than touted by EAN, et al.

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

 

3) Expensively and inadequately weatherize energy-hog houses, which still would 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 “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 CO2 from 1990 to 2020, despite investing about $5.4 billion in energy systems over about 30 years

APPENDIX 1

VERMONT FAR FROM MEETING CO2eq REDUCTION GOALS

 

Here is the latest Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Update 1990 - 2015, issued June 2018. See table 9.

http://dec.vermont.gov/sites/dec/files/aqc/climate-change/documents... 

 

Here is a version with more recent information. See pages 18 and  23

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

  

Vermont CO2eq Increased Despite Huge RE Investments During 1990 - 2015: Vermont has spent at least $5.2 billion trying to reduce CO2eq emissions, about 5.2/25 = $210 million per year, including Efficiency Vermont.

 

That total includes federal and state grants, various subsidies, reduced tax collections due to rapid depreciation write offs, and investments by private and government entities. The money was spent on insulation and sealing, new heating systems, and renewable energy programs.

 

However, Vermont’s CO2eq reduction efforts have been unsuccessful so far.

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/energy-efficiency-first...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/reducing-the-energy-use...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/comparison-of-grid-conn...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/comparison-of-energy-ef...

APPENDIX 2

MORE CLEAN, NEAR-ZERO CO2 HYDRO ELECTRICITY FROM CANADA

 

NE should have more of no particulates, near-zero-CO2 hydro electricity from Canada, which is eager to sell to us at a low c/kWh. VT is buying about 1.3 million MWh/y of HQ electricity at about 5.7 c/kWh, under a recent 20-y contract.

 

However, greedy, subsidy-seeking, renewable energy entities in Vermont, working in cahoots with legislators and bureaucrats, have been keeping it out for years.

 

They want electricity production, mostly heavily subsidized wind and solar, done the home-grown, expensive way.

That electricity is made to look low-cost by subsidies and cost shifting, but if subsidies and cost shifting are eliminated, it would be very expensive. See Appendix.

 

A standard 1000 MW transmission line from Quebec to the Vermont border, about $1.5 billion, mostly paid for by Canada, could provide about 4.5 billion kWh/y of near-zero CO2, no particulates, steady, 98% hydro-electricity, from Hydro Quebec, for about 6.0 - 6.5 c/kWh, under a 20-y power purchase contract.

 

The price would be adjusted based on at NE grid wholesale prices, which have been about 5 c/kWh starting in 2009, 11 years.

 

Canada would build, and pay for, the transmission line to the Vermont border.

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

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

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-name-of-the-game-regarding-wind-and-solar

APPENDIX 4

EPA Mileage Testing of Vehicles

 

- EPA testing of vehicles is performed by professionals, in a laboratory, at 65F - 70F. Real-world conditions, such as road conditions (hills, snow, ice, mud, etc.), cold/hot temperatures, passenger cabin heating and cooling, standing idle, etc., are not simulated in the laboratory.

- EPA testing includes charging losses, and minimal self-use only during the few hours of test time.

- EPA testing excludes the loss when parked at an airport for 2 weeks, or for at least 20 hours during the day in a garage and at work.

 

(33.7 kWh/gal-eq)/(108 mpg-eq) = 0.299 kWh/mile; includes charging losses

Adjusted to 0.299 x 1.055, loss factor* = 0.315 mile/kWh; 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 in a garage, or at an airport.

* The loss factor covers items 2, 3 and 4, which are not measured by EPA

APPENDIX 6

CO2 of NE Grid Electricity

ISO-NE publishes an annual CO2 report. The 2019 report has the data for 2017. The 2020 report, in draft form, has the 2018 data. 

I am using the 2017 data. See URL, page 13.

Source energy = Upstream energy + Primary energy

ISO-NE bases its CO2/kWh on primary energy, i.e., energy fed to power plants.

ISO-NE does not include the upstream energy to calculate its CO2/kWh.

The NE grid upstream energy is about 10.2% of primary energy.

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

 

In 2017,

 

- Fed to grid, 310 g CO2/kWh, PE basis, becomes 320 x 1.102 = 342 g CO2/kWh, SE basis.

- Fed to wall meters, 335 g CO2/kWh, PE basis, becomes 335 x 1.102 = 369 g CO2/kWh, SE basis.

 

For analysis purposes, with, in the future, millions EVs simultaneously charging all over NE, the 369 g/kWh should be used for any electricity from any wall meter in NE. That takes the unscientific RE rah-rah factor about "our Vermont grid mix, based on paper contracts, is cleaner than yours", out of the equation. See Appendix.

 

If battery charge change is used for calculating CO2 emissions:

 

CO2 is 0.4553/0.3500 x 369 = 436 g/kWh, PE basis

CO2 is 436 x 1.102 = 480 g/kWh, SE basis.

Downstream CO2 not included. See Note.

 

Table 13 shows:

 

The source energy required for a quantity of electricity at user wall meters.

The values for the Tesla vehicles were based on real-world conditions for a year.

The value for NE LDVs was based on an LDV mix using, on average, 0.350 kWh/mile from the battery.

The mix would include full-size cross-overs, SUVs, minivans and 1/4-ton pick-ups.

 

NOTE: 

Most non-engineer analysts of EVs do not use real-world values for upstream energy and driving energy.

Often, they omit the charging loss and self-use loss and their CO2.

Often, they do not ratio upwards wall meter / vehicle meter, to determine CO2, as above shown.

Their faulty analysis leads to lesser calculated values of kWh/mile and CO2/mile.

That likely leads to rosy thinking regarding EVs and likely to faulty decision-making and energy policies

Table 13/NE grid for 2017	LDV mix	Tesla	Tesla	NE grid CO2	NE grid CO2
		Model S	Model 3	PE basis	SE basis
	kWh/mile	kWh/mile	kWh/mile	gram/kWh	gram/kWh
Source energy	1.2291	1.1713	0.8315
Upstream for extraction, processing, transport, etc., 10.2%	0.1138	0.1084	0.0770
Primary energy	1.1153	1.0629	0.7545
Efficiency loss, 55.5%	0.6078	0.5793	0.4112
Gross electricity generation	0.5075	0.4836	0.3433
Plant self-use loss, 3.0%	0.0152	0.0145	0.0103
Net electricity generation = Fed to grid	0.4922	0.4691	0.3330	310	342
T&D loss, 7.5%	0.0369	0.0352	0.0250
Fed to wall meters, as AC	0.4553	0.4339	0.3080	335	369
Charging loss, 15% of WM	0.0683	0.0651	0.0462
Loss due to self-use loss, road/climate, about 8% of WM	0.0370	0.0359	0.0169
In battery a mix of LDVs in NE, as DC	0.3500	0.3329	0.2449	436	480
.
Travel, miles/y	12000	15243	11174
Wall meter electricity, kWh/y	5475	6614	3442
2 EVs	10950

APPENDIX 7

Calculation of Electrical Sector CO2

 

Physical Reality Basis

Any time a user draws electricity from a wall socket, it has the NE mix of electricity with CO2 emissions of 335 g/kWh, primary energy basis, or 369 g CO2/kWh, source energy basis. See Appendix.

  

The Vermont grid load is about 6 billion kWh/y

The user demand at wall sockets is about 6 x (1 – 0.075) = 5.55 billion kWh/y

CO2 associated with user demand is 5.55 x 335 g/kWh x 1 lb/454 g x 1 Mt/2204.62 lb = 1,857,583 Mt/y, primary energy basis

 

VT-DPS “Paper” Basis

VT-DPS definition of “Vermont electricity mix”, based on power purchase agreements, PPAs, yields a “paper” value for CO2/kWh.

 

VT-DPS estimates CO2 at 1,000,000 Mt/y in 2015, or 1000000/1857583 x 335 = 180 g/kWh, based on PPAs. See URL and Appendix.

 

It would be helpful, if VT-DPS would post its assumptions and calculations on its website, instead of just pronouncing the total CO2 and giving it to VT-ANR for insertion into its annual VT emissions report.

 

The artificial, low value for CO2 will make ASHPs and EVs appear very clean compared to gasoline vehicles.

It is obvious some political business is going on to promote ASHPs and EVs.

https://greenmountainpower.com/2018/12/13/fuel-mix/

 

See URL for preliminary GHG Emissions Estimates for 2017 and 2018 in million Mt of CO2e.

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

APPENDIX 8

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 “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.

 

A utility may claim it is 100% renewable, if 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/kWh and the CO2 of the VT electrical sector.

 

Electricity Mix Based on Physical Reality

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

 

- On un-insulated wires, as electromagnetic waves, EM, 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, per College Physics 101.

- 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 per 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, or did not know it themselves.

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

 

This article explains in detail what happens when electricity is fed to the grid.

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

 

Entities, such as VT-DPS, should use the ISO-NE estimated g CO2/kWh, at user wall sockets, to calculate the g CO2/kWh and the CO2 of the VT electrical sector.

ISO-NE bases its CO2/kWh on primary energy, not source energy.

 

Living Off the Grid

 

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

- If you draw electricity from a wall socket, you draw the NE mix, per Physics 101.