But a new study shows it doesn\u2019t have to be this way!<\/p>\n
by Rob Roper<\/p>\n
A coalition of New England think tanks released a new study this week pithily (and accurately) titled,\u00a0Alternatives to New England\u2019s Energy Suicide<\/a>, questioning the viability and cost of the renewable energy mandates adopted by most states in the region, New Hampshire being the sane exception. The gist of the report\u2019s conclusion is New England\u2019s current electrification and decarbonization plans focused on renewable energy sources could cost up to $815 billion \u2013 yes, that\u2019s nearly a trillion dollars \u2014 more than better alternatives by mid-decade.<\/p>\n For individual households, this means we\u2019re looking at more than doubling our annual electric bills from (on average and in constant 2024 dollars) $2100 to $4610. That\u2019s just the direct cost. There is also the inflationary cost that happens when businesses pass on to consumers the higher energy costs they incur producing and delivering goods and services.<\/p>\n The good news is, with intelligent, honest elected leadership we don\u2019t have to head down this path to unaffordable, unreliable, economically uncompetitive electricity. The bad news currently is, well\u2026 that whole bit about needing intelligent, honest elected leadership. But, optimistically assuming a positive change in this current drag factor come November 2026, what are some alternatives to \u201cenergy suicide\u201d?<\/p>\n Short answer: more nuclear and more natural gas.<\/p>\n According to the report, policies emphasizing offshore wind, onshore wind, solar, and battery storage, which are Vermont\u2019s current energy policies, could increase regional electricity system costs by approximately $815 billion through 2050 compared to the current grid. Vermont\u2019s share in this is estimated to be $1.4 billion by 2030, $10.1 billion by 2040, and $32.9 billion by 2050. Fun stuff!<\/p>\n However, scenarios that shift to an expanding use natural gas and nuclear power can achieve comparable emissions reductions for a substantially lower cost while providing the added benefit of a more reliable, baseload product. The report\u2019s \u201chappy medium\u201d alternative utilizing a natural gas\/nuclear reliant mix would save New England ratepayers around $620 billion over the next twenty-five years compared to the current \u201crenewable\u201d energy reliant policy.<\/p>\n While there are obstacles to the expansion of any type of electricity generation (pipeline capacity, citing restrictions, etcetera), expand we must do due to increased and increasing demand for power driven in large part, but not entirely, by AI. So, maybe, just throwing this out there, we should start working on removing some of those obstacles and working to reduce current and future cost drivers now.<\/p>\n And to that end here in Vermont, Republican legislators at the request of the Scott Administration have put in a bill,\u00a0H.601 \u2013 An act relating to the Clean Energy Standard<\/a>. In a nutshell, this would immediately eliminate the mandate that electric utilities buy \u201cunnecessary\u201d Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) when purchasing clean nuclear power for their portfolios. This would save Vermont ratepayers (relying on Grok AI for some research here) about $20 million a year off our electric bills. YES! Pass the bill if only for this provision.<\/p>\n But beyond that common sense reform, H.601 would also, \u201cremove needless statutory barriers to considering nuclear energy generation,\u201d to quote sponsor Pattie McCoy (R-Poultney). Or, in other words, let\u2019s start thinking about bringing nuclear power generation back to Vermont. Yes again. See that New England report!<\/p>\n As the other bill sponsor, Michael Southworth (R-Walden) noted,<\/p>\n Nuclear energy is greenhouse gas neutral. This [bill] will allow us to use it. [Nuclear energy] is already in our portfolio. There\u2019s 18% to 20% of the energy purchased now [by] the utilities is from nuclear production. Vermont already has the assets to advance nuclear energy. It opens up the door for Vermont to start actively looking to doing this in some fashion. Other states \u2014 Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York \u2014 are already in the process of doing this\u2026. This is the time to do it. [Building nuclear power generation in Vermont] is not gonna happen tomorrow. We\u2019re looking at seven to eight years out for it to actually come to fruition if that happens.<\/p>\n Sounds like more common sense. Since the closure of Vermont Yankee our energy costs have gone up, as have our greenhouse gas emissions. Kicking nuclear power out of our state was and has proven to be a colossally stupid policy decisoin. But, of course, the nitwits in charge of the committee of jurisdiction for H.610, House Energy & Digital Infrastructure, are more interested in paying off special interest groups such as VPIRG and their big dollar donors in the renewable energy businesses. In the split screen video of the committee hearing, you can see Rep. Laura Sibilia (I-Dover) and VPIRG lobbyist Ben Walsh texting and nodding at each other, I suspect (any lip readers out there?) getting the story straight on how to quash the bill. Kinda funny in a gross sort of way!<\/p>\n Sibilia, who is the ranking member on the committee, commented,<\/p>\n As someone who is not opposed to nuclear power and who is really interested in the overall energy transition and how we get here, you know, I think we have to really be thoughtful in thinking about a lot of things at the same time. So, we\u2019ve got these huge loads that are emerging with data centers and of, you know, Bitcoins, all of this that are competing right now for those existing nuclear contracts. You know? I mean, this marketplace is hugely dynamic. And as someone who is from the Windham County area and is on NDCAP [Nuclear Decommissioning Citizens Advisory Panel]\u00a0and has done extensive work on the economic recovery from the closure of the [Vermont Yankee] power plant, I would just encourage us to be very thoughtful, slow, and careful as we are moving forward, in a direction that I also agree is important, very slow and thoughtful.<\/p>\n Yes, we should always be \u201cthoughtful in thinking.\u201d And as I thoughtfully think about this comment, I find it odd that someone who says she is in favor of nuclear power, is interested in transitioning to more electric use for home heating an transportation, recognizes the increased demand for nuclear electricity competing for that priority, as well as the fact that the scramble for nuclear energy is in response to the world\u2019s top drivers of economic growth industries (trends where Vermont probably wouldn\u2019t do well to be left behind), and witnessed close hand the economic devastation of closing Vermont\u2019s nuclear power plant would conclude we should \u201cmove slowly\u201d here. And, not just slowly. More slowly than a bill that just \u201callows us to consider\u201d a power source that in a best case scenario could be brought on line within an 8 to 10 year planning horizon? How much more slowly can you get? Stopped. That\u2019s how much slower. And I\u2019m guessing that her (and the chair\u2019s) true objective.<\/p>\n I really do wonder what was in those Ben Walsh texts? \u201cSuck it up, Representative, and just swallow the Energy Suicide pill!\u201d Or maybe they were just making plans for dinner.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Rob Roper is a freelance writer who has been involved with Vermont politics and policy for over 20 years.\u00a0This article reprinted with permission from Behind the Lines: Rob Roper on Vermont Politics,\u00a0robertroper.substack.com<\/a><\/p>\n Like this:<\/p>\n Like Loading…<\/p>\n