Originally published on Vermont Digger in December 2015
Renewable energy continues to be a divisive issue in Vermont, whether siting issues or Vermont’s renewable energy policies in general. As many in Montpelier have noted, Vermont has experienced substantial growing pains over the past several years with the rapid build-out of renewable energy projects. According to Dr. Asa Hopkins’ September presentation to the Solar Siting Task Force, Vermont has built 120 megawatts (MW) of solar with 75 megawatts in progress on about 1,000 acres of land. Those numbers have probably grown since September.
According to the same presentation, by 2032, Vermont is expected to have 500-750 MW of solar requiring about 200-350 acres of land per year. Certainly, the growing pains will continue. In order to be successful, we cannot continue to allow the issues that divide us to fester. Both sides of the debate bear responsibility for the divisiveness and both sides should take steps to move closer toward each other.
The main argument against greater local control over siting issues is that if municipalities are allowed to have more control, then that would effectively halt renewable energy development. That is probably true in a lot of municipalities, but that argument misses the larger issue.
Vermont is conflicted when it comes to how the effort to build out renewable energy is portrayed to the public and how it is actually implemented. On the one hand, the effort is pitched by advocates as a communal good, not just for Vermont, but also for the planet. However, when it comes to the actual construction of projects, the communal benefit is harder to see when the environmental attributes (RECs) are unbundled from the project and sold out of state. Dr. Hopkins’ presentation shows that all of the solar RECs in Vermont are currently sold out of state and the remaining balance of renewable energy is composed primarily of hydro-power from Hydro-Quebec (see slide 7 of Hopkins presentation).
Even when the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) goes into effect, there is little or no incentive for the utilities to retire in-state RECs beyond the 1 percent required for Tier 2distributed generation and the utilities will not have a difficult time meeting the state’s aggregate targets within the new RPS mandates when those requirements take effect on Jan. 1, 2017. Any RECs that the utilities hold over the 1 percent requirement are “surplus” and will surely be sold on the market. As has been described in earlier articles, selling RECs helps to keep down electricity rates. Fine, but there still needs to be more honesty when it comes to the messaging. While Vermont’s renewable energy policies may be contributing to the greater good, we should be clear that we are predominantly meeting our own requirements with hydro-power. Montpelier, some of the utilities and some of the developers are not as honest with the public as they should be – we are not “going solar” as much as we are “going hydro.”
The Boardman Hill Solar Farm in West Rutland represents the ethos that we are trying to achieve with renewable energy development – “Vermont Grown, Vermont Green.” Perhaps some of the opposition to renewable energy development would diminish if there were a greater effort to follow the Boardman Hill example, not unlike the ethos we are trying to create with Vermont’s Farm to Plate program. The current situation with REC sales is as if Vermont sold all Vermont produced maple syrup into the interstate market, but none were on the shelves here in Vermont. Interstate commerce is a bedrock constitutional principle, but the structure of Vermont’s energy policy seems entirely unbalanced when so many of the Vermont generated RECs are and will likely continue to be sold out of state.
This imbalance feeds some of the mistrust that Vermonters have about renewable energy. There is a difference between making a profit and profiteering and it feels as if there is more of the latter going on in some instances, especially when the developers themselves are free to unbundle the RECs and sell them on the open market. It may not actually be true, but the perceptions are powerful. Certainly, much of the mistrust is extreme and unwarranted, but there is ample reason to keep a wary eye on how the renewable energy industry in Vermont is unfolding. As people such as Peter Rothschild have suggested, Montpelier ought to find a way to get Vermont towns to commit to being a part of the larger solution (perhaps more of a carrot than a stick approach). Rather than making it an issue of local control, it should be an issue of local cooperation. We are looking at the problem through the wrong lens.
Hopefully, the recommendations of the Solar Siting Task Force will include suggestions on how this can be done. Moreover, if possible, it would be better if there were a compromise by selling some of the Hydro-Quebec RECs and keeping more Vermont grown solar RECs and retiring them toward our goals, even if over and above the 1 percent requirement. While a 6 percent rate increase would be too much, I would personally be willing to pay some reasonable amount more on my utility bill if I knew more Vermont grown solar RECs were being retired and the utilities were selling more of the hydro RECs out of state, thereby correcting some of the imbalance.
Another effort that might help bridge the divide is better public outreach. It would be a big step in the right direction if the Public Service Department (DPS) took the lead to better explain to the public the purpose of our renewable energy policies and to take the time to explain how it all works in ways that are accessible and comprehensible to the average person. For example, it would be fantastic if the DPS published a guidebook explaining RECs and how they are being used in Vermont, similar to one published in California by the Local Clean Energy Alliance. California also has a website tracking renewable energy progress. We are a small state, but we are pushing as hard, or harder, than most states. It is not too much to ask for that kind of transparency when it comes to our renewable energy progress.
In fact, we should boast about our successes as much as possible and the DPS should be the head cheerleader. In the absence of communication, people are going to make up their own minds about what is going on and that only feeds into the divisiveness. Instead, we all need to get on the same page, as many of us as possible. I urge the DPS to play a stronger role in communicating with the public about our progress and how our policies work in plain and simple language.
There are some people who will never be convinced that renewable energy development is a good idea, but there is a healthy group of people who are supportive of renewable energy development, but are concerned about the means of getting there. I truly hope that we can talk more constructively with each other and figure out solutions that satisfy each side’s concerns about local control, siting, and our policies in general and who they favor and make this the communal good that it is meant to be.