Electric Rates Soar in New England

[Jhhnn]

Interesting that plants shutting down in 2017 are causing capacity problems in 2014. Can you explain?

Easy. Just an opportunity to... Blame Obama! Hate-Um Obama! Hate-Um!

Why make sense when you can make an affirmation of Faith instead?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Interesting that plants shutting down in 2017 are causing capacity problems in 2014. Can you explain?

Somerset Station (coal/oil) was closed in 2010, two coal units at Salem Harbor Station were closed at the end of 2011 and the last two coal units at Salem Harbor Power Station were closed June 1, 2014. Other additional closures in the next few years include Brayton Point (coal), Norwalk Harbor (oil) and Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station. These 3 plants alone account for nearly 10 percent of New England’s capacity. These future closures are affecting current prices as well.

Here's a another decent article that explains what's going on.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/news/...-england-power-plant-closings-pinching-supply

New England power plant closings pinching supply
By STEPHEN SINGER
Associated Press
Wednesday, February 5, 2014

The retirement of several power plants in New England is reducing power supply and driving up prices, the region’s electric grid operator warned yesterday.

A regional auction to buy power for 2017 and 2018 in so-called capacity markets – comparable to an insurance policy that ensures power is available in the future – ended with a shortfall in megawatts for electricity used by businesses and homes, ISO-New England said.

In the auction that ended Monday, ISO secured a commitment of 33,700 megawatts, off from 33,855 megawatts of capacity required. One megawatt powers about 1,000 homes.

The deficit in megawatts available is a first for New England, which has had a surplus in megawatt capacity since the forward capacity market was established in 2006.

“The region abruptly went from a capacity surplus and low prices in previous auctions to a capacity shortfall and relatively high prices,” said Gordon van Welie, ISO New England’s president and chief executive officer.

Major oil, coal and nuclear power plants to be retired by June 1, 2017, include Brayton Point and Salem Harbor in Massachusetts and Vermont Yankee in Vermont. NRG Energy Inc. shut oil-fired Norwalk Harbor in Connecticut last year. The plants account for nearly 10 percent of New England’s capacity. Another 600 megawatts will go offline as other retirements take effect, ISO said.

Auctions in the next three years are expected to close the gap between demand and supply, ISO said. But the “slim capacity margin” and resulting higher prices are a clear signal that New England needs more power generation and more efforts reducing demand, van Welie said.

New England will pay much more for the capacity market, one of three energy markets in the region. The cost for 2017-2018 is about $3.05 billion, compared with about $1.06 billion in 2013 and $1.77 billion in 2009.

It’s too early to know what the impact will be on customers, ISO spokeswoman Marcia Blomberg said. The retail price will rise, but it’s a small share of the total wholesale portion of the retail bill, she said.

Seth Kaplan, vice president for policy and climate advocacy at the Conservation Law Foundation, a Boston environmental group, said aging power plants are part of a “zombie fleet.”

With the rising use of natural gas, developers are proposing more gas-fired plants, he said. Wind, hydropower and solar projects also are key components of diverse energy markets, he said.

The deficit in available megawatts and price spike are “signals to the financial community and policymakers. . . . You need to build some stuff,” Kaplan said.

Entergy Corp. will shut the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station this year, ending a battle with the state since 2010 when the Vermont Senate voted against a measure that would have authorized granting Vermont Yankee a permit to operate for an additional 20 years. Lawmakers were concerned about the plant’s safety, age and other issues.

Coal’s decreasing competitiveness prompted Dominion in 2011 to ask for permission to shut the 60-year-old coal- and oil-fired Salem Harbor Power Station. And the coal-fired Brayton Point Power Station in Massachusetts – cited as a heavy polluter – is set to be retired in May 2017.

NRG shut the Connecticut plant last June, saying it was not economic to keep it running.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Easy. Just an opportunity to... Blame Obama! Hate-Um Obama! Hate-Um!

Why make sense when you can make an affirmation of Faith instead?

You're an idiot...just saying.

 

[Jhhnn]

Heh. The closing of Norwalk Harbor isn't about coal, it's about market economics-

http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/NRG-to-deactivate-its-Norwalk-Harbor-power-plant-4536674.php

Salem Harbor is being replaced by a natural gas facility-

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2014/05/31/salem-power-plant-shutting-down-after-60-years/

It's fucking ancient.

 

[Jhhnn]

You're an idiot...just saying.

Quite the complement from somebody who takes the right wing song & dance as a religious calling. You could go door to door, like Jehova's Witnesses or Mormons.

 

[DrPizza]

How about you stop acting like a troll and get back on topic?

You have completely ignored the facts being presented.

The natural gas pipelines have reached capacity. What do you think is going to happen as populations continue to grow?

Coal is not the answer.

This is just like enron throttling back supply to drive up prices.

Let's see... the free market isn't working to provide people the natural gas, because the natural gas is cheap, or some such reason. Regardless, the free market isn't working. Solutions: regulations and/or "socialize" it. I.e., a municipally owned supply line. I know some will say, "blasphemy! Not in America!" My sister used to live in a suburb of Rochester, NY. They had their own electric company. She had electric heat, electric hot water, and her electric bill in the winter was around $60. My electric and heating costs, 75 miles away, run around $400 per month (combined) in the winter. And, her taxes were at a slightly lower rate. Weird.

 

[Texashiker]

Let's see... the free market isn't working to provide people the natural gas, because the natural gas is cheap, or some such reason. Regardless, the free market isn't working.

Unbridled capitalism does not work.

For products necessary for modern life, I feel socialism is the only answer.

Fuel, natural gas, electricity, water, healthcare,,,, should all be nationalized. Bring all of those services under state ownership, turn the workers into state employees, reduce prices, turn the business into a not-for-profit state owned organization.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Here's a portion of a decent study on this subject for those interested.

http://competitive-energy.com/docs/2014/02/CES_REPORT_NaturalGasSupply_20140131_FINAL.pdf

Assessing Natural Gas Supply Options for New England and their Impacts on Natural Gas and Electricity Prices

<snip>

&#8226; Generating Plant Retirements in New England

As we noted in Section 4, our Base Case incorporates the shut-down of Vermont Yankee but not the announced closure of the coal units at Salem Harbor (unit 3) and Brayton Point. The capacity of these coal units are approximately 150 MW and 1,140 MW, respectively, and this capacity has been available and running when there is pressure on the region&#8217;s natural gas supplies. Eliminating these units will increase the power generation demand for natural gas by 0.225 bcf/d assuming that the units are replaced with CCGT units operating at a 7,500 btu/kWh heat rate. This amount of natural gas is more than 20% of the incremental supply under the Governors&#8217; Letter scenario.

Additional coal and/or oil unit retirements are a continuing concern for ISO-NE, and to the extent these are replaced by CCGT or simple combustion turbine natural gas units, there will be further pressure on he region&#8217;s pipeline capacity, even with the additional 1 bcf/d under the Governors&#8217; Letter scenario.

If we assume that an additional 1,500 MW of these units retire over the next 5 years and are replaced by natural gas units, these 2,700 MW of new natural gas-fired units will add almost 0.500 bcf/d of natural gas demand or 50% of the total new pipeline capacity under the Governors&#8217; Letter scenario. This would put the region in a short position roughly similar to that modeled as the LDC Contracted scenario.

It is possible that the retirement of coal and oil units will be offset by Canadian power enabled by new power lines to Canada. This would mitigate the natural gas shortage condition discussed in the above paragraphs; however, these new Canadian imports could not also be counted on to reduce current natural gas demands. They cannot be cited as available to offset unit retirements as well as justification for a more limited pipeline expansion, as this would be double counting.

&#8226; Increased Demand for Natural Gas

As noted in Section 3 of this Report, various studies have estimated that Design Day LDC demand for natural gas will grow over the balance of this decade by between 0.250 bcf/d and 0.400 bcf/d. The low end of this estimated range is roughly equivalent to the combined new pipeline capacities of the CT Expansion project and the proposed expansions on the PNGTS pipeline. At the higher end of the range, the new natural gas demands will offset virtually all of the new pipeline capacity of the LDC Contracted scenario.

The increases referenced in the above paragraph only relate to increases attributable to increased LDC demands. If the proposed transmission lines to Canada are delayed or are never built and the increased demands from the power generating sector are added to those from the LDCs, the combined increase could total as much as 0.900 bcf/d during cold winter days by 2020. This increase would absorb almost all of the increased pipeline capacities under the Governors&#8217; Letter scenario, leaving the region pretty much in the same situation it is in today.

&#8226; The Relationship Between Pipelines and Transmission Lines

The above discussion highlights the relationship between natural gas pipelines and electricity transmission lines. From the important perspective of their abilities to meet energy demands in New England, the two are substitutes. Both have the ability to relieve congestion on the region&#8217;s current pipeline system and supply New England&#8217;s winter energy requirements, assuming that natural gas supplies to our south and west are adequate and that there is sufficient electric generation capacity in Canada to import energy over the transmission lines in the winter.

From the perspective of New England&#8217;s electric consumers, however, the two options are also complementary. Pipeline congestion drives up the price of natural gas in New England and therefore the market price of electricity. Since this market price acts as a bogey against which Hydro Quebec or any other Canadian electricity generator must bid, we can expect bids to be higher in a market characterized by expected gas congestion in the future than one in which there is no natural gas congestion. Put simply, additional pipeline capacity into New England serves to discipline Canadian energy suppliers by reducing their pricing power. Therefore, to be assured of obtaining low prices for any imported Canadian electric energy, New England must move forward with developing additional pipeline capacity into the region as soon as possible and before entering into any electricity purchase agreements with Canadian suppliers.

In either case, whether New England&#8217;s electricity needs are met from in-region natural gas-fired electric generation or Canadian imports, the costs of this new pipeline capacity will be recovered through either lower prices for in-region natural gas generation enabled by the pipelines or lower prices from Canadian imports enabled by the price pressure brought to bear through the increased pipeline capacity. The additional pipeline capacity is necessary to enable New England electricity consumers to realize the benefits of the natural gas revolution that is benefitting the rest of the country, regardless of whether or not additional transmission lines to Canada are ever developed.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=13751

Northeast grows increasingly reliant on natural gas for power generation

 

[realibrad]

Let's see... the free market isn't working to provide people the natural gas, because the natural gas is cheap, or some such reason. Regardless, the free market isn't working. Solutions: regulations and/or "socialize" it. I.e., a municipally owned supply line. I know some will say, "blasphemy! Not in America!" My sister used to live in a suburb of Rochester, NY. They had their own electric company. She had electric heat, electric hot water, and her electric bill in the winter was around $60. My electric and heating costs, 75 miles away, run around $400 per month (combined) in the winter. And, her taxes were at a slightly lower rate. Weird.

When was the power market a free one? I dont think you understand what a free market economy is.

 

[Chaotic42]

Take your pick:

1 - Cheap power today.

2 - Leaving a liveable plant for the next generation.

The more coal we burn, the less fish we can eat. For tens of thousands of years mankind has been able to catch and eat all the fish we wanted. In less than a couple of hundred years all of that has changed.

I used to live in Oil City and we'd swim in Caddo Lake and got our water from there. Sometimes the surface would sheen with oil.

 

[werepossum]

Somerset Station (coal/oil) was closed in 2010, two coal units at Salem Harbor Station were closed at the end of 2011 and the last two coal units at Salem Harbor Power Station were closed June 1, 2014. Other additional closures in the next few years include Brayton Point (coal), Norwalk Harbor (oil) and Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station. These 3 plants alone account for nearly 10 percent of New England’s capacity. These future closures are affecting current prices as well.

Here's a another decent article that explains what's going on.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/news/...-england-power-plant-closings-pinching-supply

Clearly you are correct, but some people refuse to admit it for political reasons. This is an inherent part of Obama's war on coal. And personally, I'm fine with that. Coal is incredibly damaging environmentally to obtain, to burn, and to clean up afterwards. Natural gas is not. As Obama said, under his plan electricity costs would necessarily skyrocket. While I dislike skyrocketing costs as much as most people, there's some pretty big benefits as well.

I think the next big thing will be super critical CO2 power generation.

https://share.sandia.gov/news/resources/news_releases/brayton-cycle-turbines/#.VCrK0D2HfFY

Yeah, those are uber cool, especially combined with nuclear power. Anything practical that increases efficiency is great.

 

[rcpratt]

Hey, thanks for a link from an ultra right wing think tank! I'm sure they are giving us an accurate and honest assessment of the situation!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Energy_Research

I can't help but notice that very few of those closed plants are in New England. Do you have any impartial analysis that says EPA regulations are resulting in higher prices in New England and/or that avoiding coal plant closures in other areas of the country would have allowed efficient electricity transmission to places many hundreds of miles away? The only info we have from nonpartisan sources indicates the opposite, so I'm hoping you can help out.

EDIT: I didn't even notice the fine print where that's not even just actual closures, but ones where the IER has made their own model and is "predicting" future closures as well. (ie: bullshit)

I am consistently baffled at how otherwise smart people can be so consistently duped by dishonest people.

I don't disagree overall, but it is important to note that nearly all of the plant shutdowns due to environmental regulations (MATS, CSAPR, the new 111(d) carbon rules) haven't happened yet. It will generally start in 2016. So there's not much else to do but predict at this point.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Clearly you are correct, but some people refuse to admit it for political reasons. This is an inherent part of Obama's war on coal. And personally, I'm fine with that. Coal is incredibly damaging environmentally to obtain, to burn, and to clean up afterwards. Natural gas is not. As Obama said, under his plan electricity costs would necessarily skyrocket. While I dislike skyrocketing costs as much as most people, there's some pretty big benefits as well.

It's humorous to see so many get their panties in a bunch...as if the war on coal and its ramifications are pure fiction. LBD I guess.

 

[fskimospy]

It's humorous to see so many get their panties in a bunch...as if the war on coal and its ramifications are pure fiction. LBD I guess.

Who said any of that? It's not that retiring coal plants has no effect on energy prices, it's that you hadn't supplied credible sources saying as much.

Eliminating coal plants is a huge long term money saver, but of course that can lead to issues in the current time frame. Asking that you don't rely on ultra right wing interest groups to try to make whatever point you were going for is not too much to ask, is it? Frankly, I don't even know why you would bother reading that trash.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Who said any of that? It's not that retiring coal plants has no effect on energy prices, it's that you hadn't supplied credible sources saying as much.

Eliminating coal plants is a huge long term money saver, but of course that can lead to issues in the current time frame. Asking that you don't rely on ultra right wing interest groups to try to make whatever point you were going for is not too much to ask, is it? Frankly, I don't even know why you would bother reading that trash.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm not sure if you know how to use that meme correctly, lol.

 

[glenn1]

Electric Rates Soar in New England

 

[OverVolt]

You have to raise taxes once the population gets high so you can build a fusion plant otherwise pollution covers like 1/4th of your city, duh. And don't forget to build firestations in the industrial district.

 

[glenn1]

You have to raise taxes once the population gets high so you can build a fusion plant otherwise pollution covers like 1/4th of your city, duh. And don't forget to build firestations in the industrial district.

It's all good, I built the Globe Theatre wonder so it elminated all unhappiness in my city. Now all I gotta worry about is that Gadhi dude who keeps on saying "our words are now backed with nuclear weapons!"

 

[sm625]

US coal consumption isnt declining because of regulations. My god is there no end to the outright fraudulent political spin? Petroleum consumption has dropped by nearly the same percentage as coal consumption. The data is right here:http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec1_7.pdf The only reason natgas consumption has risen is due to the 2008 price collapse.

US coal consumption is declining because our economy is and has been collapsing for the last 7 years. A massive transfer of wealth to the top 1% has helped to keep this collapse out of the news, and the bottom 99% is of course dumb enough to let them get away with it. Total energy consumption remains at least 7% below its peak.

 

[Bitek]

I somehow don't think you will find investors willing to build additional pipelines

There are investors lined up to build a new $1B pipeline in the NE. PA to NJ along the Delaware river.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/pseg-power-joins-penneast-pipeline-project-2014-09-18

Note of course, the locals are completely shitting on it, but they have already sold much of the proposed capacity.

It should also be noted that most of the NG pipelines carry is for heating. Only a small bit goes to generation of power. The NE also heavily relies on oil heat, which has gotten very dear. The pipeline could provide power as well as affordable heating options. Coal fixes none of this.

 

[Bitek]

It's all good, I built the Globe Theatre wonder so it elminated all unhappiness in my city. Now all I gotta worry about is that Gadhi dude who keeps on saying "our words are now backed with nuclear weapons!"

His army is bullshit anyways. It's only his culture influence that let him get so big.

 

[rcpratt]

US coal consumption isnt declining because of regulations. My god is there no end to the outright fraudulent political spin? Petroleum consumption has dropped by nearly the same percentage as coal consumption. The data is right here:http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec1_7.pdf The only reason natgas consumption has risen is due to the 2008 price collapse.

US coal consumption is declining because our economy is and has been collapsing for the last 7 years. A massive transfer of wealth to the top 1% has helped to keep this collapse out of the news, and the bottom 99% is of course dumb enough to let them get away with it. Total energy consumption remains at least 7% below its peak.

The economy has certainly affected coal, and some older plants are no longer economic to operate. But that's not why the majority of these plants are shutting down. Sorry.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

US coal consumption isnt declining because of regulations. My god is there no end to the outright fraudulent political spin? Petroleum consumption has dropped by nearly the same percentage as coal consumption. The data is right here:http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec1_7.pdf The only reason natgas consumption has risen is due to the 2008 price collapse.

US coal consumption is declining because our economy is and has been collapsing for the last 7 years. A massive transfer of wealth to the top 1% has helped to keep this collapse out of the news, and the bottom 99% is of course dumb enough to let them get away with it. Total energy consumption remains at least 7% below its peak.

Current and pending regulations are most certainly major factors driving the closure of coal plants. I find your complaint about 'outright fraudulent political spin' to be quite ironic.