Blurt: Seven Days Staff Blog

NOTE: Blurt has been retired and is no longer updated regularly. For new content, follow these links:

OFF MESSAGE: Vermont News and Politics
BITE CLUB: Food and Drink Blog
ARTS AND MOVIES NEWS: Updated at sevendaysvt.com

« Furthur Show at Shelburne Museum Abruptly Canceled | Main | Alice Eats: Sumo Ramen »

June 28, 2010

Burlington Electric Weighs Contract with Hydro-Quebec

I_eastmain-1The Burlington Electric Department is considering signing a long-term power contract with Hydro-Quebec. A special meeting convenes at 4 p.m. on Tuesday seeking ratepayer input on the question.

"A deal should be resolved sometime very soon," said Daniel Shearer, chairman of the BED commission. "Anticipating that, we wanted to make sure that the public could give us feedback before we decide whether to vote yes or not on it."

BED is one of the few utilities in Vermont that did not sign a power contract with Hydro-Quebec back in the early 1990s after voters rejected the deal at the polls.

This year, Vermont lawmakers designated power from the provincial utility "renewable." Vermont is the first such state to give HQ that designation, and it could help the utility gain access to the lucrative power markets in southern New England. Prior to the designation, hydropower projects greater than 200 MW were not considered renewable, given the impact that flooding can have on the environment, and in the case of HQ, indigenous peoples' ancestral hunting and fishing grounds.

Opponents of the designation claim that granting "renewable" status to large-scale hydro projects remains misplaced, given their impacts on the environment and the lands and way of life of indigenous people.

Concern over the impact on the native Cree of northern Quebec fueled opposition to the original Hydro-Quebec contract, but the Cree have since negotiated deals that have largely benefited their tribes and allowed them to invest millions of dollars in public works projects.

The state's other major utilities — including its two largest Central Vermont Public Service and Green Mountain Power — are in talks with HQ about a new power deal. Designating HQ's power was seen as a crucial bargaining chip for the utilities to strike a good deal.

During the legislative session, the Vermont Natural Resources Council opposed the designation of large hydro, like Hydro-Quebec, as "renewable"  because of large hydro's big environmental impacts.

"BED has been a leader in promoting energy efficiency and advancing innovative programs like PACE. The fact is, HQ is a part of our energy mix in Vermont. Our concern is less with the purchase of the power and more with the legislature's designation of it as renewable because of its significant environmental impacts," said Jake Brown, VNRC's communications director.

That designation was part of a bill that changed other portions of the state's renewable energy laws, and was the last that Gov. Jim Douglas signed into law as governor.

Against that backdrop, BED has decided to ask Burlington ratepayers about whether it, too, should join with other Vermont utilities and sign onto a contract with Hydro-Quebec.

If the commission were to vote in favor of signing onto a Hydro-Quebec contract, it wouldn't be automatic, said BED commission chairman Shearer. Before any deal could take effect, it would have to be approved by the city council, Vermont's Public Service Board and Burlington voters.

In 1990, voters rejected signing onto the Hydro-Quebec deal after first approving the deal. During the first vote, flyers posted in the voting booths by BED only portrayed the positives behind the deal. A judge ruled that violated the state's elections laws and a revote was ordered.

The rejection helped thwart some of Hydro-Quebec's plans to dam rivers in Northern Quebec and helped the Cree gain the upper hand at the bargaining table. And, the rejection also forced BED to focus on investing in local renewable development and conservation, a move that has put BED ahead of other utilities in Vermont.

In fact, until this year Burlington electricity consumers had not consumed more power than they had in 1989.

Shearer said signing onto a Hydro-Quebec contract would not erase those efforts. In fact, he said it could help the city further green its energy portfolio — something its ratepayers continue to support. But, should Burlington ratepayers buy into the designation of HQ power as "renewable"?

As of Friday, Shearer said, only about 20 people had emailed BED about the potential HQ deal. The split was about even between supporters and opponents, said Shearer.

"What everyone is saying, however, is that they want BED to have a cleaner, more renewable and socially conscious portfolio," said Shearer.

Whether HQ's power meets those standards, however, is what will be up for debate.

This is the note BED sent last week to ratepayers via Front Porch Forum:

Dear Burlington Electric customers,

Thanks to everyone who has submitted their thoughts as Burlington Electric Department participates with other utilities around the state in discussions regarding a contract to purchase electricity from Hydro-Quebec. Your feedback is valuable to the commission and staff. If you have not had the opportunity to comment, we encourage you to send comments to [email protected] All are welcome at the special meeting of the Burlington Electric Commission on June 29th at 4 p.m. (585 Pine Street).

To add further details regarding the potential to purchase electricity from Hydro-Quebec, we want to be clear that Hydro-Quebec generates its power from a variety of sources including (based on data from 2007) 92% from hydroelectric dams, 3% from nuclear plants, 2.5% from natural gas plants, 1% from coal plants, 1% from wind and other non-hydro renewable resources, and the remaining 0.5% from oil and other fuels. While the power coming to Vermont utilities would be primarily hydroelectric based, it is possible that other fuel sources could be included in the energy portfolio.

This potential opportunity to obtain 10% to 15% of Burlington's electricity from Hydro-Quebec could replace a substantial amount of our short-term contracts with the New England Market, composed primarily of gas, nuclear, coal, and oil generation and/or it would replace other long-term contracts from renewable energy providers that BED has been pursuing, which could be more expensive. You can learn more about BED's current energy portfolio here:

https://www.burlingtonelectric.com/page.php?pid=128&name=BED%27s%20Power%20Supply

and its plans for future electricity supply here:

https://www.burlingtonelectric.com/ELBO/assets/BURLINGTON%20IRP%202008%20REPORT.pdf

We look forward to hearing from you as we investigate this possible contract.

"any time you take out a dam it's a real victory."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlaYJhLylzw

Say no to large hydro.

say yes to not burning coal and covering the known landscape with solar panels.

ever calculate how much land would be required to produce the hydro quebec equivalent. it's a lot. way more than any Vermonter would ever put up with.

hydro quebec is the only realistic alternative to fossil fuel and nuclear power at this point.

wind and solar development at the scale required to power VT is totally impossible in VT. The worlds largest solar power system in Spain can only generate about %10 of what VT Yankee can do now. try putting the world's largest anything in VT.

"This year, Vermont lawmakers designated power from the provincial utility "renewable."

Not that I'm against HQ, but this is the ultimate in disgraceful hypocrisy from the Vt. Legislature. 5 years ago, they would have vomitted at the idea of calling this massive damming and landscape-altering project "renewable." But now, of course, when they've followed Shumliar's craven lead and slammed the door on his favorite political punching bag, VY -- which does an infinitesimal fraction of the amount of environmental damage that HQ does -- the Legislature is practically rushing to call HQ "renewable." What's changed in those 5 years? NOTHING. Nothing, of course, except the fact that they've left themselves absolutely no alternative but to engage HQ, the formerly despised environmental desecrator, in the loving embrace of "renewability."

Of course, we can't put wind turbines anywhere in VT because that would ruin our views and would be environmentally intolerable. But we can allow and even encourage our neighbor to the north to dam up their landscape and call that "renewable" in our desperate lust for any power that: a) is not VY power, and b) we do not have to see being generated. We absolutely will not tolerate any power generating plants in Vermont. But let someone else savage their landscape and we'll call that renewable.

Hey, why not relabel coal-fired midwestern power plants as "renewable"? After all, there's plenty of coal in the ground.

The Legislature should be absolutely ashamed of itself.

Huge tracts of northern Quebec have been flooded in the James Bay and now the Rupert River projects. These are family hunting grounds, have been so for centuries.

Once flooded, lands are removed from the circle of sustainability in the harvest of the wild.

Hydro Quebec with its immense hunger for more and more energy and more and more profit, is decimating not only animals and wilderness, but culture and traditional ways of life of indigenous peoples, and hastening their abandonment of this land and these ways.

BED and Vermonters who buy electricity from Hydro Quebec are, to my mind, part of the same land grab that has laid waste to the great native peoples in the United States in the 18th and 19th and 20th century and now, with this project, will be implicated in having the same effect in Canada.

I say 'shame' ... and have been saying so to all who will listen, for years.

@sue schein:

So, HQ is "bad."

And according to "Shumliar the I-91 Speeder" and his mindless followers, VY is "bad."

And, of course, power purchased from midwestern coal-fired plants is "bad."

And according to a bunch of flatlanders-cum-concerned-Vermonters, wind turbines are "bad."

Can someone 'splain me how electricity will be available in Vermont?

Lying hypocrites all.

how are vast seas of solar panels any better for "hunting grounds" than a damn. At least you can fish in a reservoir. Also, It's not as if they're planning on building this damn. It's already there and we might as well make the best of it. How is the fabrication and placement of thousands upon thousands of solar panels gonna happen in a way that the VNRC can love? I guess the question is "what really is renewable then?"

@sue
by using your computer to type these comments you're morally culpable in said "land grab"

HQ does flood land and reroute rivers. However these "run of the river" generation systems do not cause as much damage as the spin factory suggests. And as they are run of the river (most, not all) they do not silt up over time. These generating dams will have hundreds of years of life generating power while not continuously adding greenhouse gases and otherwise polluting. They do not require the pollution load and risk (BP) of oil and gas exploration and extraction. They do not require the purchase (export of US dollars) of oil from marginal "friends" in the Middle-East.

Yes, they impact the environment. Once. Then they quietly, efficiently and cheaply deliver power continuously.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Stuck in VT (VIDEOS)

Solid State (Music)

Mistress Maeve (Sex)

All Rights Reserved © Da Capo Publishing Inc. 1995-2012 | PO Box 1164, Burlington, VT 05402-1164 | 802-864-5684