Dear Editor:

On Monday evening, I had the opportunity to talk with residents of Irasburg about the proposed Kingdom Community Wind project.  There were many questions about a report written by Dr. Holland and I wanted to take this opportunity to set the record straight with your readers who may not have been able to attend the Irasburg select board meeting the other night.

Overall, Dr. Holland’s message regarding the effectiveness of national and state policies to reduce our carbon footprint is a good one.  He based his presentation on a report from the National Energy Policy Institute released in November, 2010 that shows things like the carbon tax, and carbon cap and trade, are better ways to reduce carbon than mandates.  However, this does not make an effective argument against the Kingdom Community Wind project, as this project has the lowest carbon footprint of electric generation sources.  It is being constructed to meet the will of the Legislature, which requires electric utilities to have 20 percent of their supply from new renewable resources by 2017.  Dr. Holland also mistakenly identifies Kingdom Community Wind as having a carbon cost that is 12 times higher than other renewable projects.  Wind energy actually has one of the lowest carbon footprints of all energy sources when you count the life-cycle carbon cost, including manufacturing and mining costs.  It is lower than nuclear and solar.

He is mistaken in claiming energy produced at Kingdom Community Wind will be less than we have calculated.  Dr. Holland double counts the loss factors that are already included in the project’s capacity factor.  The fact is that this project will produce enough energy to power over 20,000 homes.  The report also mistakenly assumes that renewable energy certificates, or RECs, were deducted from the project’s levelized cost.  That is not the case.  In fact, we expect the cost per kilowatt hour to be between 9 and 10 cents before any revenues from RECs are factored in.  At that price, this will be by far the most cost-effective new renewable source of electric generation in Vermont.  Finally, Dr. Holland mistakenly compares the project’s levelized cost to an arbitrary price of $48.05 per MWh for grid-purchased electricity.  Historical data clearly shows that the cost of grid-purchased electricity can fluctuate widely.  Over time, it is safe to assume that inflation will drive electricity market prices higher, as can a number of factors including state and federal policy decisions.  Anyone who has filled up their car recently knows that the price of energy can change quickly.  One of the benefits of Kingdom Community Wind is that it is a stably priced source of energy, insulating our members from a tumultuous energy market.  In short, Dr. Holland overestimates the cost, underestimates the production and mistakenly compares a long-term stable cost with a moment in today’s market.

Currently, the Vermont Public Service Board is reviewing all the information and data about this project to determine if it is in the public good.  While the board will ultimately decide, I have no doubt that Kingdom Community Wind will be good for our region and our state.  It is the most cost-effective new renewable energy project available to Vermont Electric Cooperative members and Green Mountain Power customers.  The project will supply stably priced, clean energy that will help Vermont move away from reliance on fossil fuels, while keeping our dollars local.  And it will create more than 700 new jobs in the region in the coming year.  By providing local, clean and affordable energy, Kingdom Community Wind will help our economy and our environment.

Sincerely,

David Hallquist

CEO, Vermont Electric Cooperative

Johnson