Future Electric Rates.
by Michael J. Daley
The Department of Public Service reports about Vermont Yankee are
very encouraging to citizens who want the plant closed in 2012.
It's hard to see that because the Department emphasizes the benefits
of keeping Vermont Yankee open while highlighting only the costs
of closing it. But a close look at the details leads to this conclusion:
if VY is not relicensed the lights will stay on, electric costs
will not change dramatically, and the jobs lost at VY will be replaced
many fold by jobs in the renewable energy sector.
Here are the building blocks of that conclusion:
1) The reports find that VY is insignificant to the NE power grid
and will not be missed if closed. That means the lights will stay
on in Vermont and everywhere else.
2) The added cost to electric rates of closing VY could be as little
as $21 million over 20 years. That works out to just about $1.75
per person per year ($21 million/20 years/600,000 VT population).
3) Earlier DPS polls showed 62% of Vermonters want the plant to
close, and a lot of them were willing to pay more for that result.
Obviously, $1.75 per year is not too high a premium to pay to end
the risk of nuclear accident and the generation of 20 more years
of nuclear waste.
4) Most figures are given in twenty year totals to create an impression
of the plant's importance, but the reports reveal it is actually
a very tiny part of the Vermont economy: a mere 3 tenths of one
percent (0.3 %) of the Gross State Product and only 4 tenths of
one percent (0.4%) of the workforce.
5) Contrast this with tourism---the industry most likely to collapse
following a significant radiological accident at VY---at about 25%
of Gross State Product.
6) The reports state that renewable energy sources could replace
VY at an estimated cost of 7.3 cents/kwhr. This is CHEAPER than
current market rates and not as subject to inflation and market
volatility.
7) Using renewables to replace VY will preserve our very low carbon
footprint AND eliminate any increase in our radioactive one, as
well as ending the risk of a reactor accident.
8) Renewable energy---particularly wind and wood-fired power plants---typically
creates jobs at a rate of 4 or 5 to one over nuclear. Replacing
VY's 262 MW with in-state renewable development could create as
many as 1000 new jobs!
9) The reports show that about 68% of the direct and indirect economic
benefit to the state economy comes from the wages of the 257 Vermont
employees at the plant. The rest comes from the generation and property
taxes.
10) Since a nuclear reactor operator spending his or her salary
is no different from a wood plant worker spending theirs, the direct
and indirect economic benefits from these new jobs could be five
times greater. New generating facilities will pay property taxes.
These combined new revenues will easily outstrip the lost generation
tax from VY.
Beyond all this, there is a huge factor the experts overlooked.
A DPS report identified nearly 200 MW of cost effective energy efficiency
savings. Why did the Department fail to make efficiency part of
the strategy for replacing VY? Perhaps because efficiency costs
only 2.5 cents/kwhr, HALF the price VY is
charging us today! Talk about cheap! Such a comparison would obviously
make the costs of VY's continued operation seem huge indeed. And
the other problem might be that Efficiency Vermont is three times
more effective at creating jobs by SAVING electricity than VY is
by generating it.
Once efficiency is factored in with the already encouraging opportunities
of renewable energy development, closing VY becomes a win for the
ratepayers, a win for the state coffers, a win for the environment,
and maybe even a win for VY employees as jobs in the electric energy
sector increase dramatically throughout Vermont.
Michael J. Daley lives in Westminster, VT.
He is an author of books of science and science fiction and a lifelong
renewable energy advocate.
|