(HOST) Like greenhouse gasses, the future of electric generation is up in the air. Decisions on that future will have to be made soon. Commentator Tim McQuiston thinks it likely that no one is going to be completely happy with whatever happens next.
(McQUISTON) While the Vermont Legislature has now dropped its effort to tax home heating oil and propane, it’s almost certain that we’ll see that proposal again, probably next year.
What I’m talking about is the plan put forth in the state Senate called the global climate change initiative. The plan would expand the Efficiency Vermont utility. Efficiency Vermont is now funded by a surcharge on electric bills. It takes that money and turns it around to help businesses and homes conserve electricity. Things like replacing electric water heaters and electric heating units – or putting in more efficient lighting and cooling elements. They also do consulting.
All that sounds like a good idea for home heating as well – except for the funding mechanism. And, for now, lawmakers have responded to the loud chorus of objections that argue that energy is already expensive in Vermont. But the plan is bound to come up again, because in the brave new world of global warming we can’t afford to do nothing, and doing anything effective is going to be expensive.
Take for example the auto emission court case just under way in Burlington. If Vermont follows California in auto emissions standards, the cost of driving SUVs here will go up significantly.
In the months ahead, we’re also going to be confronted with choices that fall into the “lesser of two evils” category, like windmills, hydro power from Quebec and nuclear power. Say you don’t like nukes, either on principal or because of the waste disposal issues. Say you don’t like windmills because they clutter the skyline. Say you don’t like the environmental or cultural consequences of Hydro-Quebec.
But would you be happy with a Liquefied Natural Gas-fired power plant in Vermont? LNG typically comes from places like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. Are you happy about that? More than seventy percent of electric generation in the US comes from fossil fuels, mostly coal. That’s not an option most Vermonters would choose.
Vermont has an enviably low-carbon profile; but don’t get too smug about our low contribution to greenhouse gases, because it’s mainly due to Vermont Yankee and Hydro-Quebec, and both the Yankee and H-Q contracts are expiring in the next few years. Would you be happy about renewing them? Even squeezing every kilowatt hour out of energy conservation isn’t going to come close to filling the coming need.
Inevitably, Vermont’s electric generation profile will include more natural gas in some form. Proposals for a new power plant in Vermont will come along soon, within the next couple of years. One reason is that the electric utilities here don’t want to put most of their eggs in just the hydro and nuke baskets. It’s too risky financially.
So, as regards the future of electric generation in Vermont, soon we’re all likely to be contemplating choices well outside of our customary comfort zone.
Timothy McQuiston is editor of Vermont Business Magazine.