Ma; a Billion Dollars More for Solar
Posted in the Brattleboro Forum
#1 Feb 12, 2014
Massachusetts utility customers could get hit with more than $1 billion in higher electricity bills over the next two decades under Gov. Deval Patrick’s plan to dramatically expand solar power in the state, government and industry officials said Tuesday.
A top state official said that the average residential customer would pay $1 to $1.50 a month under the Patrick plan, which aims to cut air pollution and create more jobs in the growing solar-energy industry.
In a filing with state regulators last month, Northeast Utilities, which serves 1.3 million customers in the state, contended Patrick’s plan to quadruple the amount of solar power in use in Massachusetts would lead to consumers paying “excess costs” of more than $1 billion because of how they would be forced to buy the electricity.
#2 Feb 12, 2014
I wonder what Deval's new job is once he get out?
I'd invest in natural gas pipelines and electric transmission infrastruture.
#3 Feb 12, 2014
Massachusetts utility customers could get hit with more than $1 billion in higher electricity bills over the next two decades under Governor Deval Patrick’s plan to dramatically expand solar power in the state, government and industry officials said Tuesday.
A top state official said that the average residential customer would pay $1 to $1.50 more a month under the Patrick plan, which aims to cut air pollution and create more jobs in the growing solar energy industry.
In a filing with state regulators last month, Northeast Utilities System, which serves 1.3 million customers in the state, contended Patrick’s plan to quadruple the amount of solar power in use in Massachusetts would lead to consumers paying “excess costs” of more than $1 billion because of how they would be forced to buy the electricity.
The result, Northeast said, is that Massachusetts consumers would pay two to three times as much for solar power as ratepayers in neighboring Connecticut, where the company also provides electric service.
Mark Sylvia, commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources, acknowledged in an interview that the added cost could range from $500 million to $1 billion over the next two decades, about $1 to $1.50 more a month for residential customers. But Sylvia said in exchange for higher bills, Massachusetts residents would get cleaner air, a more diverse source of electricity, and a dynamic clean energy sector.
“We’re building upon success,” said Sylvia, noting that in 2013 Massachusetts exceeded its previous goal of 400 megawatts of solar power several years earlier than expected.
Now the administration has set a more ambitious target: 1,600 megawatts by 2020. State regulators have been conducting hearings and soliciting comments on the proposal for almost a year now, and the new solar targets could be adopted as soon as March.
The alternative energy industry is a pet project of Patrick’s. One of the governor’s signature achievements so far is a 2008 law, the Green Communities Act, that seeks to reduce energy consumption and promote conservation and renewable resources among consumers, while also creating a flourishing alternative energy industry in Massachusetts.
One way to do that is to force utilities and other large electricity consumers, such as factories, to buy a certain amount of their power from alternative energy producers like solar and wind farms.
#4 Feb 12, 2014
Utilities don’t object to the goal. Rather, they are concerned with how the governor’s plan would require them to obtain the power: by buying from a mix of large and small producers. That approach, the utilities argue, would result in them paying much higher prices for solar power — much like buying groceries at a corner convenience store instead of a large supermarket.
Instead, utilities want to be able to shop bids for solar power from a few larger producers, on the assumption they would be able to negotiate better prices based on higher volume.
“We believe competitive bidding from large private developers leads to lower prices,” said Northeast spokesman Michael Durand.
Drawing on its experience of buying solar power for its Connecticut customers from just a few larger suppliers, Northeast estimated that Massachusetts consumers would pay an additional $1 billion over 20 years if utilities have to buy from numerous small producers as contemplated by state regulators.
Similarly, National Grid argued it could buy solar power for 20 percent less if it doesn’t have to spread its purchases among hundreds of small, medium, and large suppliers.
“What we’ve said is give us more large-scale projects and we’ll make this plan work,” said National Grid senior vice president Ron Gerwatowski.“We could have a full-fledged program up and running” soon.
Sylvia said the administration has reviewed the utilities’ concerns and has agreed to launch a pilot program to determine whether buying solar power from a few large suppliers would result in lower prices.
Though prices have fallen in recent years, solar power remains expensive compared to electricity produced by conventional fuel sources such as natural gas — up to two to three times the price
#5 Feb 12, 2014
Utilities don’t object to the goal. Rather, they are concerned with how the governor’s plan would require them to obtain the power: by buying from a mix of large and small producers.
#6 Feb 12, 2014
The utilities won't object because they know that they will be able to raise rates to make the same profit. We have to be the ones to object to the left wing fantasy of solar and wind generation having some value in the world.
#7 Feb 12, 2014
Yea but, you guys want to depend on nuke plants that were built in the stone age...
#8 Feb 12, 2014
obviously a bogus mulligan- the real one never gets anything right like that
'23 GE-Designed Reactors in in 13 states Similar to Japan's'
The Mark I has design problems, the NIRS has said.
"Some modifications have been made to U.S. Mark I reactors since 1986, although the fundamental design deficiencies remain," the NIRS said.
The following 23 U.S. plants have GE boiling-water reactors (GE models 2, 3 or 4) with the same Mark I containment design used at Fukushima, according to the NRC online database:
Browns Ferry 1, Athens, Ala., operating license since 1973, reactor type GE 4
Browns Ferry 2, Athens, Ala., 1974, GE 4
Browns Ferry 3, Athens, Ala., 1976, GE 4
Brunswick 1, Southport, N.C, 1976, GE 4.
Brunswick 2, Southport, N.C., 1974, GE 4.
Cooper, Brownville, Neb., 1974, GE 4.
Dresden 2, Morris, Ill., 1970, GE 3.
Dresden 3, Morris, Ill., 1971, GE 3.
Duane Arnold, Palo, Iowa, 1974, GE 4.
Fermi 2, Monroe, Mich., 1985, GE 4.
FitzPatrick, Scriba, N.Y., 1974, GE 4.
Hatch 1, Baxley, Ga., 1974, GE 4.
Hatch 2, Baxley, Ga., 1978, GE 4.
Hope Creek, Hancock's Bridge, N.J. 1986, GE 4.
Monticello, Monticello, Minn., 1970, GE 3.
Nine Mile Point 1, Scriba, N.Y., 1969, GE 2.
Oyster Creek, Forked River, N.J., 1969, GE 2.
Peach Bottom 2, Delta, Pa., 1973, GE 4.
Peach Bottom 3, Delta, Pa., 1974, GE 4.
Pilgrim, Plymouth, Mass., 1972, GE 3.
Quad Cities 1, Cordova, Ill., 1972, GE 3.
Quad Cities 2, Moline, Ill., 1972, GE 3.
Vermont Yankee, Vernon, Vt., 1972, GE 4.
'The GE Three'(from Wikipedia)
are three nuclear engineers who "blew the whistle" on safety problems at nuclear power plants in the United States in 1976. The three nuclear engineers gained the attention of journalists and the anti-nuclear movement. The GE Three returned to prominence in 2011 during the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster.
On February 2, 1976, Gregory C. Minor, Richard B. Hubbard, and Dale G. Bridenbaugh "blew the whistle" on safety problems at nuclear power plants. The three engineers gained the attention of journalists, and their disclosures about the threats of nuclear power had a significant impact. They timed their statements to coincide with their resignations from responsible positions in General Electric's nuclear energy division, and later established themselves as consultants on the nuclear power industry for state governments, federal agencies, and overseas governments. The consulting firm they formed, MHB Technical Associates, was technical advisor for the movie "The China Syndrome." The three engineers participated in Congressional hearings which their disclosures precipitated.
(topix won't let me hotlink it, they have this stupid site programmed to think it's a dirty word whatever
#9 Feb 12, 2014
You antis are too stupid to do what it takes...to go main stream. All you want to do is filt into some poor hippy seemingly green group. You need to belong...not have the committment to change the world.
#10 Feb 12, 2014
it ain't about being 'anti' ewe nutbag!
READ about the GE Three above- they weren't anti-nuke, they helped Design the friggin GE Mark I reactor over 4 decades ago, but then realized it was a screwed up lemon of a design susceptible to meltdowns and so they whistleblew on it
3 of those Mark I's went Ka-Blooey in Fuktupshita Japan
Dr. John Gofman was on the Manhattan Project and was very pro nuke, but he WTFU after his research proved (as do more recent university studies) that low-level radiation Does indeed cause cancers/leukemia
#11 Feb 12, 2014
You got to change the minds of the suit and tie guys!
#12 Feb 13, 2014
Add your comments below
|If the rich are getting richer, what's happenin... (Apr '14)||Fri||Radio Flyer 3016||20|
|Man charged with inappropriately touching child||Apr 7||Anonymous||1|
|Former employee suing Mack Molding over alleged...||Jan '18||Comrade Sanders||2|
|Diversity dialogue to continue in Brattleboro (Aug '17)||Dec '17||Comrade Sanders||6|
|Grout Pond National Forest Area to Become Paid ... (Oct '17)||Nov '17||Defiant1||3|
|Gentlewolf released on bail (Jun '07)||Oct '17||amen||3|
|Tellman Knudson (Jun '12)||Jul '17||Angela Hernandez||51|
Find what you want!
Search Brattleboro Forum Now
Copyright © 2018 Topix LLC