Green Mountain Power in recent years has installed wind turbines atop Vermont鈥檚 ridgelines and solar arrays in its fields. All fueling the delivery of clean, green, renewable power to conscientious Vermonters鈥� homes, right?
Turns out, that鈥檚 a matter of debate.
鈥淚f you were to ask Vermonters, 鈥榙o they think that by buying GMP power from wind projects, they鈥檙e reducing their carbon footprint鈥� I鈥檇 venture to say a strong a majority of Vermonters would say, 鈥榦f course that鈥檚 what we鈥檙e doing鈥�,鈥� says Vermont Law School professor Pat Parenteau. 鈥淭he truth is, they鈥檙e not.鈥�
Parenteau is one of the lead lawyers for a group of four Vermonters who are asking federal regulators to force GMP to stop marketing its power as 鈥渞enewable.鈥�
Parenteau and the petitioners don鈥檛 deny that GMP has constructed significant renewable energy projects. But they say the utility is selling so-called 鈥渃redits鈥� for that green power to high-paying customers out of state 鈥� mainly utilities in Massachusetts and Connecticut.
The stuff Vermonters are paying for? Parenteau says it鈥檚 the dirty 鈥渂rown鈥� energy produced by coal, gas and nuclear plants elsewhere on the New England grid.
"The practical impact is this: we're sacrificing Vermont ridgelines in order for Connecticut utilities to meet their renewable requirements in Connecticut. That's what we're doing." - Pat Parenteau, Vermont Law School
鈥淭he practical impact is this: we鈥檙e sacrificing Vermont ridgelines in order for Connecticut utilities to meet their renewable requirements in Connecticut,鈥� Parenteau says. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 what we鈥檙e doing.鈥�
Parenteau鈥檚 suit is only the latest legal salvo in a long-simmering fight over GMP鈥檚 sale of Renewable Energy Credits. The state of Connecticut passed a law earlier this year that bans its utilities from buying RECs to fulfill its green energy standard, if the entity that sells those RECs continues to count that energy toward its own renewable goals.
And one of the region鈥檚 leading buyers and sellers of RECs, a firm called Next Era Energy, announced in May that it will no longer trade renewable energy credits from Vermont.
Dorothy Schnure, corporate spokeswoman for GMP, says the utility has been upfront with its customers all along.
"The electrons and the power stays in Vermont. The environmental attributes go elsewhere, and they're claimed by the organizations we sell them to." - GMP Spokesperson Dorothy Schnure
鈥淭he electrons and the power stays in Vermont. The environmental attributes go elsewhere, and they鈥檙e claimed by the organizations we sell them to,鈥� Schnure says.
So that electricity produced by turbines on top of Lowell Mountain? Schnure says it鈥檚 fed directly into Vermont. But the environmental do-gooding that comes from using the renewable energy? That belongs to the high-paying out-of-state customers buying GMP鈥檚 credits.
Chris Recchia, commissioner of the Department of Public Service, says it鈥檚 an arrangement that has allowed Vermont to build renewable projects without squeezing ratepayers鈥� pocketbooks. Green Mountain Power has sold about $22 million worth of credits since lawmakers approved this accounting arrangement in 2005.
鈥淚f we were to go the way Vermont Law School and the petitioners are suggesting, it would an average of a six percent increase across the state,鈥� Recchia says.
Kevin Jones, a Vermont Law School professor who signed on to the petition, says GMP is well within its legal rights to sell the RECs. But he says all it means is that other utilities can just produce more dirty power somewhere else. And he says GMP鈥檚 presentations to its Vermont customers obscure this unpleasant reality.
鈥淕MP has gone to great lengths to create the perception that they are green, when in reality the policy of selling the RECs has significantly increased their customers鈥� greenhouse gas emissions,鈥� Jones says.
The petition cites excerpts from op-eds, regulatory testimony and other venues in which GMP officials, according to the petitioners, have intimated that the environmental benefit associated with their solar and wind projects accrue to Vermont ratepayers.
Schnure, however, says the GMP has underscored explicitly, in corporate materials and live presentations, that while the electricity produced by the projects flow into Vermont homes, the environmental benefits do not.
On its website, GMP features a pie chart showing its 鈥渇uel mix.鈥� It shows that, aside from hydro, the utility gets only 0.3 percent of its power from renewable sources, a figure made far lower than it would be were GMP to 鈥渞etire鈥� its credits, instead of selling them.
Unlike the majority of states, utilities in Vermont are not required to procure a minimum amount of power from renewable sources. If GMP had to abide by a "Renewable Portfolio Standard," as such mandates are generally called, then it would have to either hold on to its credits, or build more renewable generation.
The situation might be unique to Vermont, where, unlike the majority of states, utilities are not required to procure a minimum amount of power from renewable sources.
If GMP had to abide by a 鈥淩enewable Portfolio Standard,鈥� as such mandates are generally called, then it would have to either hold on to its credits, or build more renewable generation.
Parenteau and Jones say insulating ratepayers from the true cost of their power harms the green power movement on two fronts. First, according to Parenteau, it thwarts the behavioral changes that would otherwise help solve the climate crisis.
鈥淚t is going to mean some increased costs for Vermonters to buy electricity,鈥� Parenteau says. 鈥淭he option then of course is, the more expensive it is, the more energy efficiency looks better and better all the time.鈥�
Jones says Vermont鈥檚 policy also has the effect of halting the proliferation of green energy projects outside Vermont. Out-of-state utilities that might have otherwise had to produce their own wind, solar or biomass, Jones says, can buy their way out of such projects by cutting a check to GMP.
鈥淰ermont鈥檚 renewable energy laws over the last decade have been fundamentally flawed,鈥� Jones says. 鈥淎nd rather than reducing Vermont鈥檚 carbon footprint, they have led to increasing Vermont鈥檚 carbon footprint.鈥�
East Montpelier Rep. Tony Klein, the democratic chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, say the petitioners misunderstand the purpose of the law that got GMP and other Vermont utilities into the renewable energy credit market.
With a Republican governor in power at the time the law passed, Klein said getting a Renewable Portfolio Standard was a political impossibility. So lawmakers looked to the art of the possible, Klein says, and came up with what鈥檚 known as the SPEED program 鈥� short for 鈥淪ustainably Priced Energy Enterprise Development.鈥�
By allowing for the sale of RECs, Klein says the Legislature could encourage the growth of renewables in a way that would neutralize the rate impacts, and therefore blunt opposition by powers that would have otherwise squelched the initiative.
鈥淲e knew from the beginning that there would be some pushback. We knew that. But we said, 鈥榳hat do we got to lose?鈥欌€� Klein says.
The law that allows for the sale of RECs expires in 2017, after which point the environmental benefits will accrue to Vermont. And Klein says that while the accounting scheme might not have been a 鈥減ure鈥� one, it allowed for the creation projects that will operate long after the unsavory sale of the RECs sunsets.
鈥淭he reality of the program is, we鈥檝e gotten a hell of a lot of projects built,鈥� Klein says.
The petition filed with the Federal Trade Commission asks the body to conduct a full investigation into GMP鈥檚 marketing practices.
