Reliance on natural gas fuels risk to grid

By DAVE SOLOMON
New Hampshire Union Leader

Published Mar 17, 2013 at 3:00 am (Updated Mar 17, 2013)

New Englanders braced for the coldest weather of the winter the week of Jan. 21, knowing temperatures were going to dip below zero. What they didn't know was that controllers of the New England power grid came dangerously close to imposing roving blackouts due to constraints on the supply of natural gas that fuels most of the region's power plants.

Then on Feb. 8, as the region braced for Winter Storm Nemo, it happened again.

"If we had lost one more big generator or a transmission line, we would have had to resort to our emergency procedures," said Vamsi Chadalavada, executive vice president and chief operating officer for the Independent System Operator of the New England power grid (ISO-NE), based in Holyoke, Mass. "Those procedures are to call on help from neighboring areas, then to call for voluntary conservation, and if that's not sufficient, to institute controlled power outages ... We came quite close."

Chadalavada described those tense moments in the control room at ISO-NE as the most stressful in recent memory. "And the period between them was equally stressful," he said, "because the uncertainty persisted. Although those were the peak periods of uncertainty, it did not disappear due to the continuation of the same conditions."

No one wants to think the New England power grid is subject to roving blackouts under the worst conditions, let alone during the relatively normal winter now ending. Peak demand on the system hit 20,800 megawatts during the early January crisis. That's high, but not nearly as high as the historic peak of 22,818 megawatts in 2004, when the economy was better and the weather was colder. But there was no talk of roving blackouts in 2004.

So what's happened in the intervening decade? In a word, natural gas. The region has become increasingly reliant on the fuel, while pipeline capacity into New England has been largely unchanged, resulting in supply shortages and price hikes during periods of peak demand.

Prices headed upward

While the natural gas revolution gave New England the lowest wholesale electricity prices the region has seen since 2003, the party may be coming to an end. The shortages experienced this past winter will come home to roost in pricing for the next round of contracts.

Natural gas trading for less than $3 per mmbtu on the wholesale market last summer peaked at $34.65 on Jan. 24 and was at $8.63 on March 14. What does that portend for future electricity and home heating prices for consumers as new long-term contracts with suppliers come up for negotiation?

"It's very difficult for me and the ISO to predict that because we have very little visibility into the way each state structures its retail contracting," Chadalavada said. "There will be an upward direction because of what we experienced this past winter, but the exact values, we just don't know."

The price increases won't be due to lack of supply. There's plenty of natural gas, just not enough pipeline to get it into New England. With only five pipelines into the region, additional transmission capacity will be key to the region's energy future.

"The rest of the country is swimming in natural gas, but we seem to be having a problem with it," said N.H. Public Utilities Commissioner Michael Harrington at an ISO-NE conference in Nashua on Wednesday. "The preferred solution is to get more pipeline."

ISO-NE has unveiled a new strategic plan that it hopes will have exactly that effect, by creating incentives for power plants to lock up natural gas supplies years in advance. That in turn, hopefully, will motivate gas line companies to create more transmission capacity.

"No one is running out and building new pipeline," Harrington said, describing the current scenario, in which pipeline builders want 20-year commitments, but energy plant owners are not willing to bet beyond five.

A changing fuel mix

While the debate over the environmental impact of hydro-fracking continues in upstate New York, Pennsylvania, and nearby New Brunswick, Canada, where massive deposits of shale gas are waiting to be tapped, the extraction continues and the impact on energy markets has been a game-changer.

"Today, with shale gas, the technology change has released the potential for what I call a national treasure with regard to the supply of natural gas for many decades to come," said Robert Keating, a principal for the energy consulting group, Keating Strategies, and moderator for a panel discussion at the ISO event in Nashua. "Studies show 100 years of supply for economically recoverable resources, which will not even begin to plateau until 2040."

In 2000, the fuel mix used to fire up New England power plants was as well-balanced as a good 401(k) portfolio, with 31 percent nuclear, 22 percent oil, 18 percent coal, 15 percent natural gas and 13 percent renewables. PSNH and its Northern Pass partners have argued that the Northern Pass project, designed to bring hydro-electric power from Quebec into the New England grid, will help expand the renewable portion of the mix if it is ever approved.

For now, natural gas dominates, with 52 percent of the market. Nuclear and renewables are holding steady, while oil and coal virtually disappeared, called upon only in emergencies like last January and February.

The reasons are no mystery. Natural gas, because of the abundant supply, is far cheaper and burns cleaner. Coal and oil are not viable in the long run due to costs and environmental concerns. Nuclear plants are aging and replacements are not coming online. ISO-NE predicts that, in the not-too-distant future, New England's energy mix could be 60 percent natural gas, 33 percent wind and 4 percent biomass (wood).

The pipeline expansion needed to make that possible is not just a matter of energy policy, but one of economic justice, according to Stephen Leahy, vice president for policy with the Northeast Gas Association. He told the group meeting in Nashua that businesses will locate where natural gas is available. A region at the end of the pipeline will be at a disadvantage.

ISO-NE is pursuing a number of initiatives to address the problem. By increasing the financial reward for generating plants that deliver energy when requested, and instituting financial penalties for those that don't, it hopes to encourage more long-term contracts that lead to less vulnerability.

"At the end of the day, if the incentives we design are strong enough, we believe the market will be creative and work around them," Chadalavada said. "If there is a pool of generators who are willing to sign contracts for a certain length of time, that might be enough to get a pipeline built."

Something has to give, Harrington said: "We can't go into next winter hoping the temperature stays above average and we never see six inches of snow."

dsolomon@unionleader.com

To improve the chance of seeing your comment posted here or published in the New Hampshire Union Leader:

Note: Comments are the opinion of the respective poster and not of the publisher.

Leo Paradis said:

I can see it now: Huge power blackouts rule in the future when our energy mix "...could be...33% wind..." People will pray that low temps are accompanied by high winds so the thousands of egg beaters that mar the ridge lines can work. We'd better find Plan B fast!
(Report Abuse)

Randy Farwell said:

This is a scare tactic to get the norther pass power project stuffed down our throats.
(Report Abuse)

Paul Conboy said:

The article is vague as to the details of the alleged "risk". What generator was "lost" and why? Where was it located? Was the real problem that they didn't have any gas to burn or that they didn't want to pay the exorbitant price that suppliers were asking due to the temporary demand? Mr. Harrington, a career PSNH/NU employee and no. pass proponent, hasn't lifted one finger to help increase the supply of natural gas into the region even though he was well aware that since last year NU had been running a highly publicized ad campaign to urge people in MA and CT to switch to low cost and abundant natural gas while at the same time fear mongering in NH about the inadequate supply of natural gas as a reasoning for their misguided no. pass proposal. It seems they were trying to engineer a shortage and it didn't work and now that winter is over, all that is left is to fear monger about it. Why didn't we hear anything about it at the time if it was an actual emergency? If there were actual shortages, why doesn't the grid get priority over nonessential uses? NH generates twice the power it uses so this is obviously not a NH problem. If some states want to use more power than they generate, they better build some new pipelines or generating facility instead of trying to use an engineered ploy in an attempt to justify a damaging get rich quick scheme like no. pass. NH isn't the doormat for fat cats from southern New England. It may be a "regional" grid but everyone needs to contribute their fair share, not just NH. This is just another example of why we need a comprehensive energy policy for NH and legislation to mandate burial of large scale transmission lines before we are carved up like a holiday turkey by these predatory developers.
(Report Abuse)

Lou Ouellette said:

Here we go again! Less than 18mos ago, we were comforted via hundreds of publications that we had a natural gas "glut" in this nation and same would help us survive the outrageous increases in the price of gasoline! Guess what? The New England power grid folks saw the "golden egg" going to Mobil and Citgo and want a piece of that action also. Now all of a sudden we have a shortage! "Almost had to let you old folks and young babies freeze to death".....Better push for "Northern Pass" so you can stay comfy in future winters. If these bozos are too incompetent to plan for power demands of the region years ahead of time, they should all be fired! Wait and see as soon as the price of "natural gas" skyrockets even higher we will once again have ample supplies! And it will have nothing to do with consumer usage.
(Report Abuse)

Lou Ouellette said:

Paul Conboy,Kudos to you! No one could have said it better! We are just getting sucked in again! Shortages are "created" by those who stand to profit from same!
(Report Abuse)

Gary Kerr said:

The Independent System Operator of the New England power grid (ISO-NE) is NOT a public utility in the sense that they generate their own electricity - as Public Service of NH used to do. ISO-NE is simply a broker for members who do generate - IE: private (profit&greed) sector companies whose primary interest is making money; not necessarily the consumer as there are no direct connections between the generators and the end user. The article describes a situation where a probable, worse case, scenario could have easily developed because of the various private (P&G) sector companies' sole motive is to make a profit via a least cost approach. That least cost (greed driven) action of relying on the least cost supply of one fuel source in NE at 52% in NE could have eventually led to black-outs for us end users. It could have been like a return of super-hurricane Sandy. But rather than driven by nature, it would have been at the behest of private sector companies' greed to make a profit. The article said that ISO-NE is pursuing a number of initiatives to address the problem (presumably the lack of an adequate fuel source in NE). One, greed sponsored approach, is "By increasing the financial reward for generating plants that deliver energy when requested, . . . ". "At the end of the day, if the incentives we design are strong enough, we believe the market will be creative and work around them," Chadalavada said. I submit that rather than "working around them" Chadalavada should has said "working WITH them" as in a cooperative effort to solve the problem - not combative.
(Report Abuse)

Paul Conboy said:

Gary Kerr attempts to justify his support for the proposed no. pass project by attempting to redefine the word "greed". Greed has nothing to do with profit unless it involves a level of exploitation like no. pass that attempts to monopolize huge profits at the expense of NH residents, property owners, and small businesses who will incur losses and thus be involuntarily forced to subsidize the proposed project. First they tried to take our lands with Eminent Domain - and failed, then they tried to buy their way through our state by making over-inflated offers to land owners - and failed, and now comes the fear mongering that will also fail. We won't be bullied or scared into submitting to exploitation like this. If they can bury a gas pipeline, they can bury a transmission line. Bury it or forget it.
(Report Abuse)

George LeMont said:

Of course we are the Saudi Arabia of coal and could power this nations electricity for five hundred years until a real technology could be developed to take its place. But that's not how green works. Green say's we must first cut off our feet then develop one of their fantasy energy sources and pray it works. Not to worry like everything else our government will be dictating our energy use for us soon, because after all government knows best and your freedom to choose is not that important. Manchester will have electricity on Monday, Wednesday and Saturday when it's sharing a wind farm with Nashua or Concord,
(Report Abuse)

Paul Conboy said:

We are also the Saudi Arabia of natural gas and can power everything needed without poisoning the people and planet like coal. Even China is backing away from coal because it's so dirty and dangerous. Just build the needed pipelines - where they need the power. What good is all that gas if we can't use it?
(Report Abuse)

Bob Damon said:

Lets recap what the story said:The issue? We are at the end of 5 natural gas pipelines, and during peak use, there is not enough gas available.Not a price problem.Not a northern pass conspiracy problem.There is plenty of natural gas, it just can't get here.
(Report Abuse)

Paul Conboy said:

The article says: "The region has become increasingly reliant on the fuel, while pipeline capacity into New England has been largely unchanged, resulting in supply shortages and PRICE HIKES during periods of peak demand." That sounds a lot like a price problem to me. No. pass proponents have been using this exact argument in an attempt to generate some support for their doomed proposal for some time so it is surely related - not a "conspiracy" theory like those who stand to benefit would try to have us believe. NU knows pipeline capacity hasn't changed so why else would they attempt to increase demand so much? It sure looks like they are trying to create a supply shortage and resultant price hike because they stand to benefit from it.
(Report Abuse)

Dominic Connor said:

Several years ago, there was an 'electricity crisis' in California with rolling blackouts/brownout etc., that was reported by all the major news outlets for weeks. In the end, the whole thing was determined to be a scam engineered by ENRON. CEO Ken Lay croaked while appealing his conviction, but many executives from Enron went unpunished and walked into the sunset with eight and nine figure fortunes......possibly there is a shortage....but jus sayin
(Report Abuse)

Paul Conboy said:

The Champlain Hudson Express Project that will transmit 1000MW on an underground and underwater line to the NY metro area originally proposed to place two lines instead of just one. Since that's where the demand is, shouldn't they just reconsider and add the other line like they were going to or is that just way too efficient?
(Report Abuse)

Gary Kerr said:

PAUL CONBOY - QUOTE: "The article is vague as to the details of the alleged "risk". What generator was "lost" and why? Where was it located?" With your kinds of questions, I have to wonder if you have the factual knowledge regarding the situation. The situation of energy generation and/or transmission loss can lead to happenings like the NY/NE "black-out" of 1965 and the extended NE-wide one of just a few years ago. Additionally, just because the winter is nearly over that does not mean that the problem of lack of fuel to be used to generate electricity at peak times is passed -- NH and much of NE is a dual peaking demand region. That means in both the winter AND the summer, electricity demand peaks. You also seem to forget that because too many NIMBY folks have prevented (for their specific, self-centered interests) the development and construction of electric generating facilities and/or transmission lines, that no new, major facilities have been built and brought on-line - hence, the requirement to share the consumer created, demand burden. By the way Paul, I have not supported the Northern Pass project. What I have often suggested is the understanding that if consumers of electricity don't reduce their demand and NIMBYs (opponents to new projects) don't give-in a bit, then we will all be without power from time to time.## QUOTE: " . . . PRICE HIKES during periods of peak demand." == GREED! That is an example of greed because the actual cost of the product has not increased - just the retail price AND more profits! Northern Pass is not a factor!! ## DOMINIC CONNOR has also provided an excellent example of GREED = operations of Enron. ##PAUL CONBOY - Aren't you barking up the wrong tree when you comment on The Champlain Hudson Express Project? You seem to be preaching isolationism, yet you are commenting on a project totally out of NH and and for the consumers in NY, not NH!
(Report Abuse)

Paul Conboy said:

Gary Kerr, If my questions are inappropriate, please say why. Do you know the answers to them? Yes, we are a dual peak region so the next time for no. pass fear mongering won't be until mid-summer and investors will probably have bailed if they haven't produced a route by then. Why is everyone who is opposed to the proposed no. pass project a nimby in your estimation? It seems an undeserved slur. The Gov. opposed it and I think she is from Exeter. People who don't live anywhere near where it has been proposed don't want to see their state trashed unnecessarily when there are clearly better options like underground that most believe is a fair compromise. On March 6, while commenting on an article about no. pass, you asked about compromise and my reply also dealt with the word "greed". "Paul Conboy said:Gary Kerr, -" Whatever happened to the neighbor-friendly attitude that used a technique of finding mutual interests, common goals, and an understanding that life involves compromise for the good of society?" - The answer lies in the question. If you realize the need for compromise, you might want to speak to the people from no. pass who have adamantly refused to compromise. They insist on using vulnerable, environmentally destructive, visually disturbing, and outdated methods of transmission with potentially adverse health effects that the people of NH have overwhelmingly rejected when a simple compromise like UNDERGROUND is a clearly better option. This issue has nothing to do with compromise, or national security, or free market economics, or the cost of burial, or any other red herring that proponents can dream up. It has to do with one thing only. GREED. Greed and greed alone - pure and simple. If psnh can ram this line through NH on a right of way they control, they get all the money from the line rental agreement. If it goes underground by the highway, they have to share. It's that simple. They will advocate for an overhead method even if it costs more than underground for that very reason. If you are truly concerned with "the good of society", - Let's make it a referendum and let society speak for itself? If you have been paying attention for the last few years, you would already know where the people of NH stand. The question is whether or not their rights will be upheld or trampled.(Report Abuse) March 6, 2013 10:33 am " I thought you were being sarcastic and implying that the utilities were being unfairly painted as greedy just because they were trying to make a profit. I don't deny anyone the right to make a profit as long as they don't do it at someone else's expense like no. pass is attempting to do. The ISO process is one of competitive bidding that seems fair to me. I'm certainly not preaching isolationism just because I want other states in our region to carry their weight and do their share when it comes to energy production. Why should they be allowed to close all their polluting power plants and demand burial of their transmission lines while they expand their plants here and ask us to pay for it and try to use outdated, vulnerable and unsightly overhead lines and towers for transmission in our state? As I pointed out, it is not just a "consumer created demand" since they were advertising for people to switch to "abundant" natural gas.
(Report Abuse)

Gary Kerr said:

PAUL CONBOY - QUOTE: "The article is vague as to the details of the alleged 'risk'. What generator was 'lost' and why? Where was it located?" These are the questions to which I referred. Your questions ask for real-time, actual generating capacity outages and location of same. The article did not talk of real-time failures but what would happen if they were to occur. There is a huge difference between planning for an outage and actually having to deal with one. The thrust of the article is to show the problems and impacts, if they were to occur. From your post, I do not see that you understand how and/or why ISO-NE operates the way it does. ##In case you do not know what the acronym NIMBY means, here it is -- Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY); it does apply to most any opponent and to most anyone who expresses their self-serving interests. The extent of "back yard" is not limited to one's own back yard. ##Sure, a scientific and statistically correct survey would likely result in a reasonably true poll of feelings about the topic. However, to be valid, the polling sample has to be representative of the populous. Those who voice their opinion here (electronic form of UL) is not representative of all of NH. ##Question: do you understand what the phrase "economies of scale" mean? Do you understand the concept of sharing generating capacity via a regional power grid and the inherent advantages? (HINT - It's similar to the reasons that a regional EMS compact is made between neighboring towns.) Do you understand the concept of diversity of "load" on the grid? Do you know the importance of a diversity of generating capacity and the fuel sources needed to keep those generators producing electricity? Simple competitive bidding to a distributor (traffic cop for power) does not necessarily provide the appropriate ratio of fuels to run generators as displayed by the article - it is too heavily dependent on the moment-to-moment price of fuel which fails to guarantee the proper mix of fuels/generators. The ISO bidding process with the lowest price for fuel as its only criteria is like putting your entire retirement savings in only one type of investment - putting all the eggs on one basket. That is to say - not a good idea!
(Report Abuse)

Paul Conboy said:

If ISO NE is going to pull the plug, the blackouts better be in states that closed their power plants, not here in NH where we make twice what we consume. The silence of John Mercier is deafening but welcome. Gary Kerr, If you don't support no. pass, would you refer to yourself as a NIMBY?
(Report Abuse)

Kenneth Dye said:

I tried..., I really did.I nearly read five sentences of Gary Kerr's post before dismissing him, again. If anyone hasn't discovered it already Gary Kerr (G&K) is the smartest person in the "room". Don't believe me? , just ask him. Tonight is the "DAILY DOUBLE" night. Just like Jeopardy everything Gary (G&K) has to post will be in the form of a question. Gary, what is the importance of a diversity of fuel sources to run a variety of generators?And how does that relate to the diversity of "load" on the regional (or national) power grid? What are the advantages of sharing generating capacity here in the northeast and who are we sharing it with? and to what end? What is the appropriate ratio of fuels to run generators as displayed by the article? If I have a chicken coop and the chicken poop generates methane can I still put the eggs in one basket? or will I need separate baskets for each? and what will be the proper ratio of chicken coop methane gas to provide for generation of power to be shared with others who may have their eggs in different baskets from my own? should I sell my eggs to the lowest bidder? all in the same basket?
(Report Abuse)

Paul Conboy said:

Gary Kerr, The article states: ""If we had lost one MORE big generator or a transmission line, we would have had to resort to our emergency procedures," said Vamsi Chadalavada, executive vice president and chief operating officer for the Independent System Operator of the New England power grid (ISO-NE), based in Holyoke, Mass." One "MORE" usually means "additional" as in there has already been at least one already. Does it mean something different to you? I never said anything about "real time" - those are your words. I asked what generators were "lost" since you have to lose at least "one" before you can say "one more"- otherwise it seems dishonest. Now you are saying no generator actually was lost due to an inadequate supply of natural gas. This lends more credibility to the fear mongering claims. Apparently our interpretations of the "thrust of the article differ. Save your lectures on "diversity of fuel sources" for CT - NU and PSNH of CT's home state who have shut down their nukes and coal burning plants and denied wind power and focused entirely on natural gas while at the same time NU installed a new coal burner in NH. Isn't that a perfect example of NIMBY? We'll pollute NH to feed the grid that CT and MA feed from also. NH generates power from small scale hydro, biomass, coal, gas, wind, nuclear, and probably other sources as well. We aren't the cause of the problem so we shouldn't suffer the consequences. Like the saying goes, "Poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on our part." NH generates very little power from gas so I doubt any plant in our state was affected. Adequately sized pipelines need to be built where the gas generators are to ensure their dependability if that is the problem. It isn't an excuse to try and ram through a faulted proposal like no. pass just because NU has helped to engineer a supply problem by pushing a product now claimed to be in inadequate supply so they can cry to the Feds and have them declare no. pass a matter of "National Security" - What a load of horse hockey that is. And yes, economies of scale - like installing two lines instead of just one for Champlain Hudson and diverting one to CT, good idea, more direct, less line loss, etc. Yes, it's a regional grid but everyone needs to contribute their fair share and NH already does it's share twice over as well as playing host to one HVDC line, don't even think about another unless it's underground. This is why we need the legislation that mandates the burial of these large scale transmission lines because they are going to attempt to force this line on us because PSNH's financial death spiral is tightening and they are desperate.
(Report Abuse)

Paul Conboy said:

Gary Kerr, Did PSNH of CT assign this new strategy to you instead of John Mercier because of his long standing insistence on the lowest price power? Now, all of a sudden, the lowest price is just plain wrong? You don't like my questions because they expose your half baked attempt to fear monger and to use fear and contrived and engineered supply problems and price hikes to try to influence public opinion and likely legislation or federal edict. Yeah, sure, you don't support no. pass. - and neither does Jeff Rose - and I don't oppose no. pass either. The people of NH aren't NIMBY's just because they don't want to be exploited by foreign and out of state utilities like psnh of CT when there are obviously better ways of transmitting large scale power. We should be afforded the same treatment as CT. - mandatory underground of transmission lines - unless those NIMBYS think we aren't as good as they are. Good luck with your latest strategy, I'm sure the results will be familiar to you.
(Report Abuse)

Gary Kerr said:

PAUL CONBOY - Actually, Paul, I truly consider myself as a realist and not with a NIMBY attitude. Quoting from a recent post of yours "If ISO NE is going to pull the plug, the blackouts better be in states that closed their power plants, not here in NH where we make twice what we consume." == self-centered attitude called NIMBY! ##KENNETH DYE - If you honestly and truly do not know the answers to those questions about diversity regarding electric power generation and load, then I suggest that you take a variety of electrical engineering courses (with an open mind) regarding the electric power industry and a variety of economic courses (again, with an open mind) to determine those answers for yourself. The intricacies of the balance between the various factors is far, far too involved to attempt a detailed, understandable education on the topic via this venue. By the way, it may take four to six years of college level education and another twenty years of real-life experiences to obtain that knowledge. ##PAUL CONBOY --I just re-read that lead-off paragraph and agree that your perspective about real-time versus planning is certainly a possibility. However, the lack of detailed information could be that none was given to the story writer if the UL, or, he simply did not include said information. Question to you - do you know the history behind the reason why Northeast Utilities (NU) of CT was originally given the virtually exclusive rights to the PSNH territory in NH? That happened long before deregulation of the power industry. ". . . don't support no. pass. - and neither does Jeff Rose . . ." I don't understand the connection to Jeff Rose, who is he? By the way, I have no connection to NU other than I do use their power generation and distribution system to power up my house. As for the absence of John Mercier's comments - good question - don't know.
(Report Abuse)

Paul Conboy said:

Gary Kerr, I guess we'll just have to disagree as to who is the NIMBY - NH with it's diversity of generation and it's providing the grid with twice the power it uses as well as hosting a HVDC line through our state direct to MA, or states like MA & CT who close their dirty coal plants, and dangerous nukes, deny wind projects, and rely exclusively on clean burning and low cost natural gas while NU/Nstar/psnh of CT install unauthorized new coal burners in NH to feed the grid they draw from while spending millions in an attempt to further trash our state with yet another HVDC line to feed their demand for power in southern New England. It isn't NIMBY [for the MILLIONTH time] not to want to be exploited. It's common sense and basic human rights. Is it our responsibility to provide for everyone, lest we be labeled "NIMBY"? What if Rhode Island wants a line or two? - or another into the Boston area? Do we just keep clear cutting right of ways for everyone who can make some money doing it? I am all for clean and renewable power but there is a balance to everything and any further giving by NH should be on our terms and in our best interest. We aren't asking for CT or MA to supply our needs we only ask that any additional transmission lines be buried which is more than fair and everyone knows it. It is common practice these days in our region and mandated in the very state trying to do here what is illegal there. Sounds like NIMBY to me.
(Report Abuse)

Gary Kerr said:

PAUL CONBOY - Yes, it seems prudent and in the interest of "discussing(?)" other things, to agree to disagree on what constitutes NIMBY. For clarity purposes when you say the HVDC line, is that the one that comes from Hydro Quebec - James Bay, Canada? If yes, then I trust that you know that it is placed in the middle of an existing RoW corridor that already contained two sets of high voltage transmission lines and towers, etc. That translates to no new cutting because an existing corridor in NH was used. Do you realize that extremely extensive hydroelectric power generating dams/storage reservoirs had to be built to provide the capacity? In other words, other countries and states have already altered their "back yards" to accommodate the generation of electricity for their neighbors needs. That is an example of sharing the burden and not being isolationists. Speaking of generating capacity, do you realize that SeaBrook station was originally designed with two nuclear generators but the second one was never built? Back then, the generated power was to be mostly used by PSNH customers as PSNH was the primary owner. However, that company went bankrupt (first regulated monopoly to do so) and the buy-out plan that was accepted was a proposal submitted by Northeast Utilities. This happened even though other submitted plans favored the customer more than NU's plan that favored the stock-holder over the customer. That is an example of profit taking and greed sponsored actions. I've heard that the SeaBrook Station is now owned by a Florida utility and that all of the generated power is shipped out-of-state now. One needs to realize that from the start of initial planning by PSNH (probably 1950s vintage) to on-line status, a time period of nearly 40 years elapsed. During that same block of time, many other occurrences happened, too. Things like the blackout of 1965, the Vietnam War, the contrived oil shortage (planned and manipulated embargo) of 1973, the regulatory environment changed, and the bankruptcy of PSNH to name a few. As to your claim that NH generates twice as electric power than it consumes, I'd have to see the figures on that topic. Because you did not acknowledge any experience with the two extended New England-wide blackouts that I previously mentioned, I really have to question your statistic on power generation capacity. ###PS - Regarding that comment attributed to the ISO-NE guy about a "lost generator", that could have been a planned outage for repairs or an actual generation facility that simply dropped off-line at an inopportune time. Granted, a lack of information exists, but why does it matter?
(Report Abuse)

Paul Conboy said:

Gary Kerr, For someone who claims to know so much about the subject, it seems to me that you shouldn't need to be a self proclaimed expert to know the generation output of NH's power plants, [you could just google it] I didn't think common knowledge needed to be sourced, - and NIMBY has been the cry of no. pass proponents since the beginning so your claim that you haven't posted any overt support for no. pass [under this name, anyway] while you slur opponents as nimbys is indicative of your position. You obviously do or have worked for a utility, either directly or indirectly, and are still on that team whether or not you are currently drawing a check which you likely are. I am not preaching isolationism, you are preaching colonialism and exploitation. How do you know what PSNH was going to do with their power from Seabrook? Were you part of that team? They were never going to close all their other generators just because they had power at Seabrook. They would have sold it to whoever they could, just like they have no plans to sell any no. pass power to NH, we are just the conduit and the doormat for MA and CT. They are still going to burn coal here. Just because Canada exploited their residents and Native population by flooding their homes and lands, that doesn't justify a carte blanche approach from that point on. More wrongs will never make it right. The reason it matters as to which generator was "lost" and why is to be able to verify and determine the facts that are missing as the article is vague in that department. It will then be able to determine if pipeline capacity is the problem or if it is just a supply contract problem and if and where new pipelines may need to be constructed. If you're going to fear monger on the front page, people have a right to the facts, not just some vague threats.
(Report Abuse)

Gary Kerr said:

PAUL CONBOY: It seems that you are making so many assumptions, the total is too high to count! First, generator capacity is NOT the same as generation AND depending upon what the facility has for generators and fuel type usually dictates the type of load the plant is designed to handle. In addition, the off-line or on-line duty status of each plant facility needs to be known to help determine the capacity at any given second. That knowledge is factored into the operational status (outages: planned and emergency) of the entire generating capacity for each utility, etc. A simple Google "search" is not going to have that specifically needed information. However, your response to my question did provide the answer as to how uninformed yet opinionated you are about the topic. Also, what is your definition of "common knowledge"? My psychologist brother says that "common . . . " stipulates that ALL people have to know it, a fact that makes the issue mute because of the factual reality is impossible. NIMBY attitudes are NOT solely aligned with only the northern pass topic; therefore, NIMBY is not related to pro or con of the northern pass, as you have incorrectly assumed; rather, it represents an a self-centered, self-interest ideology of any debated topic. ## The users of Seabrook power generation, at the time of first concept, were publicly (as opposed to "common") advertised to be primarily used by PSNH customers and/or (in cases of grid emergencies) sold to NE Power Grid partners (neighbor helping neighbor). That was long before ISO-NE was even a glint or glimmer in some kid's eye! As a regulated monopoly and industry member, PSNH had legal agreements between the various other licensed utilities within NE and eastern NY state which were all part of the NE Power Grid. This was previous to the industry deregulation when it was then allowed to have back-stabbing with greed and profit motives "regulating" the industry. ## As I tried to explain to you in a previous post, the notion of having only one generating facility for the entire state (as in closing down facilities) is totally unwise and a ridiculous and unfounded assumption made by you. It is obvious to me that you failed to understand the need for diversification. ##Out of the last five lines of your post as printed in this venue, the only topic that contains any real logic is the one QUOTED here -- "More wrongs will never make it right." ## IF you were attempting to determine the cause of an outage, then knowing which generator/site and why is important; however, you are not trying to solve a power service/outage problem; you are merely expressing your lack of real knowledge and replacing it with your opinions using falsely based conclusions yet calling them facts.
(Report Abuse)

Paul Conboy said:

Gary Kerr, Why are you now making up excuses and possible scenarios for what you first claimed never happened? You question several things that anyone can see is obvious. Your analysis of the article was totally wrong. It's as if you didn't even read it before commenting and then you say - what difference does it make anyway? You better add to your extensive educational resume some refresher courses starting with remedial reading. You were correct about the acronym for nimby although the three different definitions you gave for it don't apply to NH but to the NU/PSNH of CT's home state of CT. We aren't trying to trash their state for our benefit. You talk of "sharing the burden"? Does MA or CT make twice the power that they use? I'll give you a hint, the answer is NO but NH does. What part of the "burden" are they shouldering? Are you guys so desperate that you are just going to throw anything at the wall and see what sticks? The Vietnam War? - really? Whoever is paying you should get their money back. PSNH of CT - the first investor owned utility to go bankrupt since the Great Depression and now in a financial death spiral that grows tighter by the day. According to: [DOC] Connecticut Electricity Overview - CT Energy Education - Southwestern CT has been identified as an "area of concentrated need" that has seen significant growth in demand yet can not generate enough power to meet it's needs. This is where the second line originally planned for the Champlain Hudson Express Project could go to address the shortage there. I believe that's where it was supposed to terminate in the first place and the most direct route.
(Report Abuse)

Paul Conboy said:

Gary Kerr, Allow me to draw from a previous post by Kenneth Dye because he said it best. - - - - - I tried..., I really did. I nearly read five sentences of Gary Kerr's post before dismissing him, again. If anyone hasn't discovered it already Gary Kerr (G&K) is the smartest person in the "room". Don't believe me? , just ask him. Tonight is the "DAILY DOUBLE" night. Just like Jeopardy everything Gary (G&K) has to post will be in the form of a question. Gary, what is the importance of a diversity of fuel sources to run a variety of generators? And how does that relate to the diversity of "load" on the regional (or national) power grid? What are the advantages of sharing generating capacity here in the northeast and who are we sharing it with? and to what end? What is the appropriate ratio of fuels to run generators as displayed by the article? If I have a chicken coop and the chicken poop generates methane can I still put the eggs in one basket? or will I need separate baskets for each? and what will be the proper ratio of chicken coop methane gas to provide for generation of power to be shared with others who may have their eggs in different baskets from my own? should I sell my eggs to the lowest bidder? all in the same basket?
(Report Abuse)

Gary Kerr said:

PAUL CONBOY - The one conclusion that I draw from this exchange of thoughts is that you refuse to learn from other folks who are not aligned to your self-serving attitudes about realities not directly controlled by monetary drives. My purpose was simple - show you another point-of-view. However, considering your inability to comprehend the concept that a variety of factors are involved in the decision making processes used by others, suggests to me that you are so opinionated that you refuse or cannot see the forest for all its trees. ##As for my reference to the Vietnam War, that reference was to show you the prevailing anxieties of society. My guess is that was a wasted effort. ##Since you seem to like quotes from the Kenneth Dye exchange, here's another. QUOTE: "##KENNETH DYE - If you honestly and truly do not know the answers to those questions about diversity regarding electric power generation and load, then I suggest that you take a variety of electrical engineering courses (with an open mind) regarding the electric power industry and a variety of economic courses (again, with an open mind) to determine those answers for yourself. The intricacies of the balance between the various factors is far, far too involved to attempt a detailed, understandable education on the topic via this venue. By the way, it may take four to six years of college level education and another twenty years of real-life experiences to obtain that knowledge." HINT: discuss with an electrical engineer within the industry the terms baseload, peakload, spinning reserve, nameplate capacity as compared to generation, cold reserve, and how the fuel sources impact a plant's on-line output as a to start. There are with many, many more topic and hours to follow if you choose. I suggest that you listen intently with an open mind and not be antagonistic and/or opinionated. Hopefully, you will learn a few lessons of reality! Also, I suggest that your lessons are in a face to face venue, not on a computer. ##Your citation from the "[DOC] Connecticut Electricity Overview" simply proves to me that relying on the private (profit&greed sponsored) sector to supply the region's electricity in a dependable, reliable manner is wrong if service to customers and reliability is the most important facet AND making a profit comes later in the priority of importance. In the money hungry, profit and greed driven, supposed "free" enterprise system, investors and shareholders obviously are of more importance than a well serviced and happy customer!!
(Report Abuse)

Gary Kerr said:

PAUL CONBOY - "Fearmongers, Bury it or forget it." = an example of pure NIMBY. Curious to know when your first class in electrical engineering and utility economics is to occur and by whom?
(Report Abuse)

Gary Kerr said:

PAUL - Are you just a broken record (old time vinyl platter) or just the operator?
(Report Abuse)

Paul Conboy said:

The dictionary, a far more credible and unbiased source, defines the word "NIMBY" as: "a person who objects to the siting of something unpleasant in their own neighborhood while raising no such objections to similar developments elsewhere." This confirms my analogy of the CT NIMBY's who have outlawed overhead transmission lines in their state but are trying to force them on our state. Far from being a statement of "pure NIMBY", "Bury it or forget it" is an admonition to those "NIMBYS" from CT to treat us as equals and as they treat those in their own state and backyard. When such large amounts of money are at stake as with the proposed no. pass project, and when companies are in a desperate financial situation or financial death spiral, it is easy for them to lose perspective. Under such pressure, some weaken and are unable to control themselves and they will bend all their efforts to acquiring the object of their desire in spite of how unfair or completely wrong a means they feel compelled to employ. They are able to completely reverse the reality like the definitions of words or the obvious meaning of simple words in the above article. It's sad, but completely understandable. No hard feelings, I understand the pressure you guys must be under.
(Report Abuse)

Gary Kerr said:

PAUL CONBOY - The quoted segment taken from your post (abbreviated for space concerns) " . . . Under such pressure, . . . in the above article." is describing the actions taken by less than totally scrupulous business interests and/or not totally scrupulous politicians and/or self-serving NIMBY types, yes? Did you note that even in your definition that the basis of the definition is the "me" and "self-serving" attitudes that creates their so-called "justification" for the action?
(Report Abuse)

Paul Conboy said:

We in NH are not "NIMBYS". We are not the ones trying to force something on others that we object to here. The people of NH have a proud history of giving land, easements, and right of ways for the common good of all whether it be utilities or highways or whatever is needed. We bear the risk of a nuclear power plant that exports all of it's power out of state. We do generate twice the amount of power that we consume - in spite of the doubts expressed above, several sources from all sides have given testimony to this easily verifiable fact that we are providers of power - unlike some who have their hand out while calling us names and trying to exploit our beautiful state and residents. We have every right to deny playing host to another HVDC line that we don't need but all we asked is to be treated fairly by burying the line but the NIMBYS from CT say, "impossible" and call us "NIMBYS" for even suggesting it. People have had enough of the colonialist arrogance from an ungrateful utility that looks down it's nose at us and treats us with disdain as it bleeds us for every hundred million it can squeeze from us - [scrubber, etc] That's why their customers have been fleeing their sinking ship and aren't going to bail it out again. After the bankruptcy auction, let the next owners take a lesson that we won't be exploited anymore and they should treat us fairly.
(Report Abuse)

Gary Kerr said:

PAUL CONBOY - QUOTE: "We in NH are . . . " and your " 'me' and 'self-serving' attitudes" are so NIMBY that you need to know that you do not speak for all of the residents of NH - especially me. I find your presentation to be very uniformed as to factual details; so grossly opinionated, and your devout unwillingness to consider another point-of-view that further attempts to offer an education are fruitless - it's just so much like and as productive as talking to a brick wall - neither entity listens!
(Report Abuse)

Paul Conboy said:

GARY KERR, obviously not one to let a dictionary definition get in the way of his own self serving agenda to help force the proposed no. pass project on the people and state of NH against their clearly and strongly expressed wishes and best interests, is correct in saying I don't speak for him, or anyone who attempts to sway public opinion by name calling or boasting about how smart they are, or the Manchester and Nashua chambers of commerce who have made outspoken claims of support for the proposal that doesn't impact their backyards [I think there's a word for that] and yet also conveniently claim not to support no. pass when it serves their purpose. I don't claim to speak for anyone but I know from talking to people that most of them feel the same way I do. But in order to be sure and to address GARY KERR's concern, we should put the no. pass proposal on a ballot and hold a referendum and thereby remove any and all doubt. The people of NH are the ones who will have to live with and look at these towers and lines and be subject to their ramifications so it seems only fair to see where they stand on the matter. Good idea, GARY KERR.
(Report Abuse)

Paul Conboy said:

GARY KERR, I suppose your superior intellect assumes the people of NH are too stupid and ignorant to notice how hypocritical your posts are. You insult me by referring to my use of the same reply as a "broken record" and then you post two consecutive identical comments. You rant about GREED and NIMBY and yet these are the concepts most descriptive of the CT utilities trying to force us to submit to a proposal that is outlawed in their backyards [NIMBY] and their only motivation is money [GREED]. The hypocrisy of these posts is exceeded only by the arrogance of the reeducation camp model of persuasion that attempts to get people to agree to things that are against their own best interests. Please come back soon and "teach" us more fascinating hogwash.
(Report Abuse)

Home » News » Weather

Reliance on natural gas fuels risk to grid

Comments

Post a comment