What Should Be Done About New England Energy?

During the Stakeholder meeting yesterday, December 18, 2008, discussed in the previous post, Dan Weekly, Dominion Northeast Government Affairs Director, provided some thoughts on Energy situation in New England.

There should be a greater focus on Fuel Diversity for the Power Generating Plants in New England.  Currently, there are too many Natural Gas plants.  Natural Gas is not native to New England.

More Base Load Generators should be built (not fueled by natural gas).  Siting of these plants should be simplified.  Getting the capital to build such a plant is even more difficult in the current economic environment.

Hold a ‘Successful” Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) Auction.  The current legislation should be changed to reward a non emitter of greenhouse gas as well as the current program for new non emitter plants.  For example, Millstone should be credited for the new 75  Megawatts (Mw) that is generated as a result of the recent power uprate.

A National Climate Initiative may be good or bad for New England depending upon the cost.  The Midwest won’t be as supportive of a climate initiative so getting the same standards as California or the New England States is not likely.

Changing (Reducing) demand is great but, by itself, won’t solve the energy problems in New England.  Billing by time and consumption would be a good incentive.

The opinions of an Electric Industry Executive should be considered when trying to resolve the base load deficiency in New England.

Advertisements

7 responses to “What Should Be Done About New England Energy?

  1. No CEO of any utility or power generation company in New England is going to even propose a new base load power station until the situation is dire – as in rolling blackouts. You can’t build a nuke; you can’t build an oil burner; and you certainly can’t build a coal burner.

    15 years ago, natural gas fired plants were seen to be the saving technology. So everyone starting building natural gas burners, and when the market became tight and fuel prices went up, that option became less attractive.

    So then the solution became transmission and not production. Transmission lines allow you to shift the problem of siting production facilities to other regions of the country. And that’s why there have been billions of dollars in transmission projects over the past 10 years in New England.

    Couple that with gas turbine peaking units here and there and you have the short and intermediate term solution.

    Building power stations in true blue New England is, in the lexicon of the sea, too hard. Only the government would be able to do something like this. Evil utilities won’t be able to.

    By the way, if Seabrook 2, Pilgrim 2, Sears Island, and Montague 1 and 2 had been built and Millstone 1, and the Yankee units been kept operating, this discussion would be moot.

  2. 15 years ago, natural gas fired plants were seen to be the saving technology. So everyone starting building natural gas burners, and when the market became tight and fuel prices went up, that option became less attractive.

    Also recall that Connecticut and New York are vehemently opposed to Broadwater, the natural gas platform in Long Island Sound. So natural gas is ok to burn, but it’s not ok to deliver. Natural gas terminals in Delaware, Rhode Island and Massachusetts also have fierce local opposition for various reasons.

  3. HEINRICH CRYS WOLF/ Capitol Police Shoot Cocker Spaniel

    Sorry to intrude on this discussion, but the NH Register in its print edition this morning that the infamous envelope that was offered to Rep Heinrich contained a grand total of $40. It also reports that Heinrich told the CP that at no time did Public Enemy #1 (Perrelli) ask for anything in return for this King’s ransom. Perrlli told police that he told Heinrich ” Since you’ve been so helpful to me, I want to give you a Christmas present.”
    The CP report states that 30 minutes elapsed between the “alleged offer and the arrest.” And then there’s this kicker in the report by the arresting officer “It struck me as abnormal that I seized over $650 in cash fromPerrilli, even though there was only $40 in the envelope he attempted to give to Heinrich, he did not even try to persuade me that money from the wallet was not connectedto the envelope.”
    Apparently it didn’t dawn on them that maybe he didn’t try to dissuade them of their supposition because the fact was it wasn’t connected.
    Finally I didn’t find any report of this in my edition of the Courant or online. One would think that after making it an “above the fold” story, and a gushing editorial, there would have been some follow up reporting.

  4. AndersonScooper

    JM–

    I understand why you don’t provide us a link to the New Haven Register article, because if you did, readers would know that it remains highly uncertain if the envelope full of cash contained the $40 Perrelli is claiming, or a jail-deserving $500+.

    It would be good to hear Deb Heinrich’s side of the story…

  5. No link was provided because I couldn’t find the story online, only in the print edition. This is not unusual with the NHR.
    Heinrich is already on record as saying she did not look in the envelope and doesn’t know how much was in there. Strictly speaking she doesn’t even know if anything was in the there,
    She is also quoted in the police Report as saying that at no time did Perrilli ask for any quid pro quo.
    I’m not exactly sure what you can expect her to add to these two facts that would incriminate Perrilli.
    Finally what you claim is “highly uncertain” is derived from the arresting officer’s supposition quoted in my prior post arising from Perrilli’s silence after the money from his wallet was “seized.” In order to “seize” the wallet,the CP would have to have taken Perrilli into custody at which point they should have given him his Miranda warning.
    Please remember that Miranda starts by informing the person that he has the right to remain silent.
    Exercising a Constitutional right is not evidence of guilt, and certainly should not be considered “abnormal’ by a law enforcement professional.

  6. Repeat after me:
    Innocent until proven guilty,
    Innocent until proven guilty

  7. Repeat after me:Innocent until proven guilty,Innocent until proven guilty

    YES.
    And proven beyond a Reasonable Doubt with evidence, not supposition.
    I get the feeling that all the Deb supporters here forget that this guy is charged with a felony.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s