RutlandHerald.com - We Are Vermont

Energy rates may increase sharply



Toolbox

By Bruce Edwards STAFF WRITER - Published: November 18, 2009

Ratepayers of Central Vermont Public Service Corp. could see their electric rates climb 30 percent over the next five years, CVPS President Robert Young told local lawmakers Tuesday.

Young cautioned that his estimate is subject to change based on fluctuations in the wholesale Northeast power market. He said much will also depend on whether Vermont Yankee is relicensed and whether CVPS reaches a deal on a new power purchase contract with Entergy, the nuclear plant's owner.

Young made his comments at the annual legislative breakfast hosted by Stafford Technical Center.

Young expressed frustration in negotiating a new deal with Entergy but said progress on a new contract picked up over the past two months. At the same time, he said a new contract remains far from certain.

He said inking a new deal is complicated by several factors including the relicensing of the plant, which requires legislative approval, the involvement of other utilities and involvement by the Department of Public Service and the governor's office.

Young said a new contract has to make sense from an energy standpoint and pass political muster as well.

"I hope we can reach an agreement," he said. "I will tell you personally that I view the plant itself as a tremendous asset to the state of Vermont in terms of jobs, in terms of tax base, in terms of reliable power, in terms of its lack of contribution to carbon dioxide and carbon footprint."

But Young said if a deal isn't reached by early next month Entergy is likely to make its own "take it or leave it offer" to Vermont utilities.

The contract with Vermont Yankee expires in 2012 and if there is no new contract, Young said there is plenty of surplus power available in New England for the foreseeable future.

"So you don't have to worry about whether your lights are going to stay on if that plant shuts down," he said.

Young said CVPS already has a backup plan to purchase replacement power from a fossil fuel source that has a slightly larger carbon footprint than Vermont Yankee.

The utility sent out requests for proposals seeking 100 megawatts to 120 megawatts of replacement power and received bids totaling 1,800 megawatts.

During a question-and-answer session, Rep. Robert Helm, a Castleton Republican, asked Young where electric rates are headed.

"The guy who's paying $100 a month now is going to be paying five years from now how much?" Helms asked.

Young said that's difficult to predict because it's based on the Northeast wholesale power market, which is driven by the price of natural gas-fired generating plants.

"You tell me what gas is going to be and I'll tell what the price of power is going to be," he said.

Young pegged the cost of future power in the $60 to $90 megawatt range with renewables priced even higher. By comparison, the current Hydro-Quebec contact is priced at $65 per megawatt hour and Vermont Yankee at $42 per megawatt hour.

He said if Vermont loses Vermont Yankee, the company's ratepayers will likely see a "substantial run-up" in what they pay for electricity.

"I will tell you we could see our rates going up in the next five or six years 30 percent, if some of these prices bear out," he said.

CVPS recently filed for a nearly 6 percent rate hike that would go into effect in January.

The state's other major power source is Hydro-Quebec.

Young said negotiations on a new contract with the provincial utility are "certainly going a lot smoother" than the talks with Entergy. He said CVPS expects to have a new contract with Hydro-Quebec by next year. The existing contract expires in 2016.

If new long-term contracts with Vermont Yankee and Hydro-Quebec are forthcoming, he said CVPS would be buying somewhat less power from both sources.

Young said the utility is listening to Vermonters who want a balanced power portfolio that includes renewables, with an eye on cost.

He said CVPS has renewable power sources lined up as part of its portfolio that will begin in 2012.

Young also touched on other areas:

Giving serious consideration to building a medium-sized power plant in the state.

CVPS is embarking on its Smart Power investment, installing and upgrading its infrastructure to two-way digital in-home meters that will give customers control over their power usage.

A 50-kilowatt solar project is being built at the company's service center on Route 7 with the help of Stafford Technical Center students.

bruce.edwards@rutlandherald.com








READER COMMENTS


Comfy for the record we heat our home,the guest cottage and all our domestic hot water with a wood fired boiler.We have annual savings approaching $7,000/hr and cut wood from our own land.. Thats our contribution to saving
-- Posted by bruce meyer on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, 8:56 am EST

report this comment



It's not enough that I gave you a helpful hint BM? Make your own!
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Sat, Nov 21, 2009, 6:00 pm EST

report this comment



how many did you make comfy to do your part?
-- Posted by bruce meyer on Fri, Nov 20, 2009, 3:30 pm EST

report this comment



FYI, if you check around on youtube, you can find out how to build your own, very cheap, solar heater for your home. There is a wide variety of demonstrations available and you can choose the one that is best for you. The one that I looked at cost about $10-$15 to make.
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Fri, Nov 20, 2009, 12:13 pm EST

report this comment



Clyde is absolutely right. When we conserve lots of energy, the power companies jack up the prices so that thier profits will not fall. To try to say that Clyde is suggesting that we all waste power to keep costs down is just a giant and silly contortion of logic.
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Fri, Nov 20, 2009, 12:09 pm EST

report this comment



Clyde, are you advocating wasting electricity to keep rates down?
-- Posted by John Ward on Fri, Nov 20, 2009, 10:39 am EST

report this comment



Jim, it would be easier to quantify "affordable" if you could quantify "very little power".
-- Posted by John Ward on Fri, Nov 20, 2009, 10:37 am EST

report this comment



If anybody is paying attention to electric rates. When too much electricity is conserved, the power company raises its' rates, (after supposed PSB approval). They need more money coming in due to the fact that we as consumers have cut back usage. Has anyone else noticed this? Good Day, CCF
-- Posted by Clyde Fitzgerald on Fri, Nov 20, 2009, 9:45 am EST

report this comment



If you think this is bad. Wait until Cap and Trade passes.
-- Posted by Jules Peteani on Fri, Nov 20, 2009, 6:43 am EST

report this comment



John the question is when will these affordable solar systems be available? My office would be perfect for solar if it was reasonable as we use very little power.
-- Posted by Jim Eckhardt on Thu, Nov 19, 2009, 6:42 pm EST

report this comment



If you don't know how much of your power is coming from renewables then not enough of it is.
-- Posted by John Ward on Thu, Nov 19, 2009, 6:15 pm EST

report this comment



Thank you Jim for what you have done with conservation and I will try to push you to do more. Many of us should be able to reduce our consumption to the point where an affordable solar pv system will produce as many kwh/yr as you use with the added benefit of producing that power during the day when demand is highest. Yes, I did say affordable. Almost all states have programs, usually funded by charges against utilities not using renewables, that help pay towards systems. They are often geared towards less rebate for people with higher incomes and more expensive houses. These people usually do well with the Federal tax credits. The financial payback does come and the environmental and political paybacks are priceless. I agree that we need a diverse mix of baseload power, renewables, and conservation but not that coal or nuclear need to be that baseload power.
-- Posted by John Ward on Thu, Nov 19, 2009, 6:12 pm EST

report this comment



John, I have no idea how much of my current power use is coming from renewables. I guess it would depend on what you call renewables. Some call Hydro Quebec and VY renewable. Others do not. For the purpose of this post I am talking about wind and solar. I do know that I have done my part to insure that my power use is as low as I can get it for both my house and office (insulated, changed bulbs, new programable thermostats, etc). I don't want a windmill in my front yard. Solar panels for my house or office are priced way too high to ever see a return at this time. My electric bill is what I would consider low due to conservation. I know we need a diverse energy portfolio of base power, renewables and conservation. The question in these economic times is how we get there without bankrupting the businesses and citizens of Vermont. Maybe you have an answer?
-- Posted by Jim Eckhardt on Thu, Nov 19, 2009, 5:15 pm EST

report this comment



You two are too much fun. For all this talk of "I'm all for renewable energy" how much of your electricity consumption is from renewables? And how many kwh/mo are you using that is NOT from renewables? Do you see any potential problems caused by the amount of your consumption of electricity from non-renewables? I would like you both to answer.
-- Posted by John Ward on Thu, Nov 19, 2009, 4:36 pm EST

report this comment



Jim, yelling "follow the money" over and over again still doesn't change the fact that you have NO proof that any of these people bought Democratic votes.

None. Period. Hint all you want, insinuate all you want, even outright accuse all you want... but you got nothing, and you know it.

Sad. So very, very sad. Does the RCPBC have any better spokesmen? Anyone at all?
-- Posted by Son Of That Guy on Thu, Nov 19, 2009, 4:06 pm EST

report this comment



SOATG, I stick by every one of those posts. I am for renewable energy but I also use my common sense. I don't rely on the government to do that for me. So once again you can't answer the money question. Hmmmm.
I can see why the citizens of Vermont are not heard over all those party laborers counting the money given to them by special interests. If your party is the one taking this special interest money you might want to ask them why they are selling out the voters to the highest bidder.
-- Posted by Jim Eckhardt on Thu, Nov 19, 2009, 2:33 pm EST

report this comment



Are you kidding me? You're still asking why anyone in the renewable energy business would given money to the party that actually supports renewable energy?

Why do you think anyone donates money to any politician? To any political party?

C'mon, now. You must be playing at this. You can't be this deliberately stupid. I refuse to believe that you can't understand why people donate money to politicians who agree with them.

Are you simply angry about the amount of cash given? Are you jealous that no one's giving that kind of cash to your party and your favorite politicians in Vermont?

And as for "I am for renewable energy" quote... as I just posted in another thread, your posts on these forums last forever and it's always pretty easy to catch someone in an obvious lie.

Once again... Mr. "I am for renewable energy" Eckhardt on, well, renewable energy:

"Wind and solar will not work on a grand scale."
"Either way the taxpayers of Vermont will pay and pay dearly for these experiments."
"I don't think wind will work in Vermont."
"No one wants wind in their backyard but the Legislature is promoting it anyway."
"Windmills in Vermont is a bad idea."

Now, Jim: explain to me how someone could possibly read your own words and NOT come to the conclusion that you are (at best) a mealy-mouthed flip-flopper or (at worst) an out-and-out liar.

Hmmm?
-- Posted by Son Of That Guy on Thu, Nov 19, 2009, 2:14 pm EST

report this comment



And he's off. Jim Eckhardt exposes the truth and SoaTG "can't handle the truth". Your party is just as, if not more corrupt then the Republican party. Now lets go back to my last post. I asked you a question (I never expected an answer) about why a family so entrenched in renewable energy companies and President of the American Wind Assoc. would give the Democratic Party so much money.
You can't tell me can you? See I am for renewable energy but I am not for the process that is being used to gain it favors. Thats a lot of money, why do you think they gave it?
For your information our organization does not give money to politicians. If you look at our members list you will find Democrats, Republicans and Independents. No sorry no socialists which is why you have a problem with it.
-- Posted by Jim Eckhardt on Thu, Nov 19, 2009, 1:41 pm EST

report this comment



Oh My Good God, stop the presses! A business organization gave money and support to a political party that supports their agenda! Holy cow! This is huge! This is groundbreaking! This is newsworthy!

This... is typical, and of course, you know that perfectly well. Unless, of course, you trying to tell us that NRG Systems has bought off the Democratic Party, which in turn has instructed all of its members to vote for renewable energy projects. Are you, Jimbo?

You claim the "proof is in black and white and is very real". Proof of what, Jim? That NRG systems supports the party that supports renewable energy (and, by extension, DOESN'T support the party that doesn't support renewable energy)? Or are you trying to claim that a standard financial disclosure form for political donations "proves" that NRG Systems has bribed the Vermont Legislature?

When the members of your own little organization donate money to Republicans, are THEY buying off the VT GOP?

Or does it only count as a bribe if your side wins?
-- Posted by Son Of That Guy on Thu, Nov 19, 2009, 1:21 pm EST

report this comment



SOTG, Unfortunately the proof is in black and white and is very real. There is no conspiracy theory. There is a group of very wealthy business people that gave allot of money to a particular party. That party passed a bill during a recession that will increase every Vermonters electric bill (unless your on a social program). Check out the website let me know your explanation (I can't wait to hear it). Why did the Blittersdorf's give so much money to the party?
Both parties are just as guilty of this type of behavior but this is the here and now that we are talking about.
-- Posted by Jim Eckhardt on Thu, Nov 19, 2009, 11:42 am EST

report this comment



The future of nuclear power? Entergy CEO J Wayne Leonard recently said, "There is no need to embark on the riskiest piece of the business." So long as he can unload the riskiest piece of the business like Vermont Yankee to Enexus , Entergy can pocket the borrowed Enexus money for its shareholders. All Vermont shareholders in Entergy, please rise and publically disclose your personal financial investments in Entergy. Mr Governor ??? Mr Obrian???? Mr Irwin???? Public employees are suppose to be working for not Entergy but for the people of Vermont. Let's put it out there on the table for all to see!!!
-- Posted by ksw on Thu, Nov 19, 2009, 10:35 am EST

report this comment



Oh Good Lord, here we go again with Jim Eckhardt's conspiracy theories about how the Vermont legislature has been bribed by Big Bad Renewable.

Talk about a broken record!
-- Posted by Son Of That Guy on Thu, Nov 19, 2009, 9:56 am EST

report this comment



Wendy,
There is an inaccuracy in your post. The Legislature actually passed a Bill that guarentees up to .30 cents per KwH. This is not Baseload power but what I would refer to as pay back power. There are certain people that will make a lot of money off this new Bill. Those people are the renewable energy company owners. All other business is bad but renewable energy companies are great. They are great because they invest money and alot of it in our politicians. Lets just look at one of these owners and his wife who both own renewable energy companies. Go to this website and look at how much money the Blittersdorfs gave to the politicians http://www.city-data.com/elec2/06/elec-CHARLOTTE-VT-06.html . Do you beleive it was a good investment for them? Do you beleive that our politicians raised electric rates during a very bad recession because it was good for Vermonters or good for the party?
-- Posted by Jim Eckhardt on Thu, Nov 19, 2009, 8:33 am EST

report this comment



Keeping power costs low (or even moderate) is not possible when the recently passed law gives alternative energy producers premium rates--up to $0.20 per KWH. This high cost power must be supported by the rate payers in the overall pricing--hence the needed increases. Couple that with the fact that some of those alt. sources are not baseload power nor consistent production which will increase the offset costs even more. The legislature should be ashamed of this scam to treat special interests to great opportunity on the backs of low and moderate income Vermonters, and small businesses, who can ill afford a rate increase. While the $88 million deficit built up, the energy bill is representative of the policies crafted under the dome. So sad for my native state and the working folks.
-- Posted by Wendy Wilton on Wed, Nov 18, 2009, 11:18 pm EST

report this comment



No way any new contract will be for 4.2 cents per kwh for 20 years. It will be much higher. Entergy is stalling because the wholesale market is low now. They want prices to go up before they seriously negotiate.

And don't forget, wherever nuclear power is going, VY will be among the first to get there. I am willing to bet it never makes the whole 20 years if it gets re-licensed. And what will the contract say if it cannot make the entire 20 years? I am sure there will be an escape clause that lets Entergy out of having to supply replacement power.
-- Posted by Ray Makul on Wed, Nov 18, 2009, 9:42 pm EST

report this comment



Keep in mind that that 4.2 price worked out very well for Vermont in the past. Right now it does not line up to be in our favor. I don't know how any company can guarentee prices for 20 years. There has got to be a better way. Lets try to avoid forcing a crisis. Also if it closes, VT may not remain the cleanest State in the US. We will end up buying power from the polluting sources.
-- Posted by Jim Eckhardt on Wed, Nov 18, 2009, 6:29 pm EST

report this comment



Scratch the Enexus spinoff and tell us what those magically cheap VY rates are going to be upon relicensing, and we'll talk.

Jay Thayer's now on record as regretting the existence of that 4.2-cent-per KWH rate that you constantly brag about, so it's pretty safe to say that we can throw THAT number out into the nuclear waste scrap heap. Even if it's actually HIGHER than those awful spot-market prices are right now -- which probably explains why Entergy has been hemming and hawing and stalling on a price commitment, eh?

And if there's no contract signed with CVPS and GMP -- and both companies have indicated that Entergy is NOT coming to the table on this issue, and hasn't for months -- Thayer's already said Entergy would sell power to Vermonters at whatever the current market price happens to be.

4.2 cents? Not any more, bub. No matter what happens.
-- Posted by Son Of That Guy on Wed, Nov 18, 2009, 4:17 pm EST

report this comment



Hey you, Son of a That Guy. I see you still have nothing productive to offer.
What do you think should be done with Vermont Yankee?
-- Posted by Jim Eckhardt on Wed, Nov 18, 2009, 3:41 pm EST

report this comment



"I agree that the spin off is suspect. The State should be concerned about the spin off, given that the closure fund is not fully funded, only because we want it returned to greenfield immediately following closure."

My goodness... a glimmer of non-politicized off-message common sense from Mr. Eckhardt! But... it is real?

Back on October 26, an "April Hillman" wrote in a letter to the editor ("Exenus doesn't equal Entergy" criticizing the spin-off. Jim Eckhardt immediately attacked Hillman for being nothing more than a "Greenpeace Activist" helping to usher in another "hippie phase".

On October 19, a "Marisa Riggi" wrote in a letter to the editor ("Vermonters on the hook") taking the same position on the same subject. Jimbo's knee-jerk reaction? You guessed it... attacking the writer for being a know-nothing "very active member of Greenpeace".

So has Jim Eckhardt stuck in finger in the wind and decided that it's now time to start agreeing with the Greenpeace hippies on... something?

Stay tuned for next week's exciting episode of...

"As Jim Eckhardt's Political Winds Turn"!
-- Posted by Son Of That Guy on Wed, Nov 18, 2009, 3:06 pm EST

report this comment



Ksw, stop your fear mongering on the safety of the plant. ALL studies have found the plant to be safe. If you find one that has not please post it. Also stop your fear mongering on Vermonters holding the bag. Where is it stated that Vermonters are responsible for the costs of the plant?
I agree that the spin off is suspect. The State should be concerned about the spin off, given that the closure fund is not fully funded, only because we want it returned to greenfield immediately following closure.
Let the capitalstic market control what happens to VY. The Legislature should butt out. If VY cannot sell power to the utilities at competitive rates then the utilities should work out deals with other providers and VY will be forced to close by the lack of customers to purchase their product. The Legislature is just trying to politicize this plant. What we should all be concerned about is the economic impact that the closing of this plant will bring to Vermont. Those are high paying jobs. Those people will leave VT if the plant closes. So 600 people loose their jobs, put their houses on the market and leave Vermont. Imagine what that will do to Vermont and our budget? Where's the common sense?
-- Posted by Jim Eckhardt on Wed, Nov 18, 2009, 11:08 am EST

report this comment



If Vermont Yankee is such a huge asset, why is Energy trying to unload it to a company that has to borrow the money to own it while Entergy shareholders pocket the cash and Vermonters are left holding the bag... an aging dinosaur
needing billions to maintain. Stop your fearmongering speculation on what electricity will cost. Vermonters can see the emperor has no clothes. Sell your damn Entergy stock and stop telling us Vermont Yankee is good for Vermont. Buying electricity on the open market is cheaper than buying it from Entergy and will be for quite some time. And we are all learning to use less with energy efficiency and conservation.
-- Posted by ksw on Wed, Nov 18, 2009, 8:51 am EST

report this comment


You must be logged in to leave a comment. Register | Log In

Logout