Bright idea caught in old arguments
|
|
A solar panel outside a home under construction in East Montpelier that can track the sun's movement across the sky. FILE PHOTO BY JEB WALLACE-BRODEUR |
Toolbox
By JEFF WOLFE - Published: November 15, 2009
Once again, John McClaughry gets it wrong when it comes to renewable energy and Vermont's future. And by getting it wrong, I mean this: His "vision" will result in higher statewide unemployment and continued degradation of our environmental resources (the thing that drives Vermont's economy the most).
On first blush, it appears that McClaughry's goals for Vermont are no different from ours: We both want to create more jobs here, to preserve our quality of life, and maintain good energy supplies. But he thinks we can achieve those ends through conducting Business As Usual; the simple truth is that those methods are no longer viable. If we want to move Vermont forward in a global economy that is increasingly centered on renewable energy development, we must adapt. The world is changing, our energy sources are changing, and our climate is changing. Responding to these outside forces requires Vermont to re-create and reinvent itself. If we do so, we can lead the northeast economies, just as New York did when it first developed hydropower at the turn of the last century.
McClaughry clings to old-world political views that do nothing to address our grave dependence on the dirty fossil fuels which are destroying the world and fanning the flames of global terrorism. Does he really want to continue subsidizing coal and nuclear plants and keep sending Vermonters' money to large out-of-state corporations? The recently passed "feed in tariff" will create jobs during the worst economic recession our state has endured in generations, and will provide Vermont with stable electricity costs in the face of an uncertain future. It's a winning combination for our environment, Vermont businesses and Vermont ratepayers.
Willem Post, the "expert" McClaughry cited in his recent piece, has no experience in renewable energy, or in the current finance structures available in the market. His analysis has been disproved by several experienced renewable energy firms. Even the Vermont Department of Public Service, no bastion of radicalism, disagrees with Post's analysis.
All energy sources receive incentives and subsidies, some are just more hidden. A recent study by the Environmental Law Institute, for example, reviewed federal energy subsidies from 2002-2008, and reported that the majority of energy subsidies support sources that emit high levels of greenhouse gases – 72 billion in subsidies over the five-year period – a rate of nearly 2.5 times the amount to support renewables.
Vermont's renewable energy industry has repeatedly asked Post to perform a similar analysis of existing fossil and nuclear fuels — fully understanding such an analysis would reveal similar cost impacts in any other energy industry. To date, he has not. Instead, he continues to conduct side-by-side cost analyses of nuclear and solar power, without accounting for the huge government subsidies we've paid for nuclear energy or the cost of waste-disposal, as though comparing apples and oranges is acceptable accounting practice.
Unlike nuclear power, solar provides power during peak hours when Vermont already purchases wholesale electricity at more than $0.30/kWh. This more expensive type of power is called "spot" power.
The analysis McClaughry cites, if correct, would indicate that a solar project would earn $138,000 per year, after an initial $6.5 million investment. Assuming his calculations make sense, that's a modest two percent annual return. Maybe it is my upbringing, but I believe when a business makes an investment in clean renewable electricity – an investment that supports the local economy and has innumerable benefits for society at large – an annual gain of two percent seems more than reasonable.
McClaughry is flat-out wrong when he states that ratepayers will be socked with an extra $2.19 million in extra electric costs for solar. In this scenario, if you compare the cost of solar against spot power rather than nuclear power, the cost is closer to $500,000 total. That's less than $1/Vermonter over the 25 years, or about $0.04/year/person. Even John McLaughry can afford that, and it sure seems like a prudent investment to help Vermont create and keep jobs now.
By installing and investing in solar, Vermont will benefit from a 30 percent federal tax credit flowing into its coffers. Lawmakers would be remiss in their duties if they didn't capitalize on this opportunity to fuel our local economy. As ice caps continue to melt worldwide, as both oceans and energy costs rise, as global terrorists continue to feed off our addiction to oil, Vermonters have an opportunity to work in and develop an industry that is in demand and more important to our survival than ever. If we cling to the old world "Business As Usual" advocated by McClaughry, Post and their allies at the US Chamber of Commerce, Vermonters will not only watch as the green economy goes to other states and countries, but in the end, will pay for the power that those economies produce.
There is a new clean energy economy coming and there is nothing we can do to hold it back. Why McClaughry and his allies seek to do so is a mystery. Vermonters want clean power. Let's not let McLaughry and a faulty analysis stand in the way.
Jeff Wolfe is co-founder and CEO of groSolar, a national solar energy installer and distributor based in White River Junction.
36