Power In New England: Why are Prices Increasing so Rapidly?

On October 20, IBM announced that it was spinning off its chip division by paying GlobalFoundries $1.5 billion. GlobalFoundaries appears to have won the deal with its geographic position of owning fabrication facilities in New York as well as in Germany and Malaysia. The move didn’t surprise many, as there have been rumors that IBM has wanted to jettison the division for years.

The move was significant for the State of Vermont, as the company’s chip plant in Essex, Vermont has been one of the state’s largest employers, with around 4000 employees, and an additional 4000-6000 jobs being directly supported. One of the concerns the company has voiced in recent years has been about the potential impact of rising electricity prices.   IBM pays over $35 million annually for electricity at its Vermont facility. A 25% increase in electricity prices could be enough to encourage the new owners to shift production to lower cost facilities.

Within just a few weeks of IBM’s announcement, several New England electric utilities announced disturbing price increases starting early this winter. The Massachusetts utility, National Grid, announced a 37% increase in electricity prices beginning in late Fall. Liberty Mutual soon followed by announcing price increases of 50%. Unitil, one of New Hampshire’s largest utilities, announced that prices would go up by nearly 100% from $.08/KWh to $.15/KWh.

Vermont residents were temporarily spared from similar price increases. Vermont utilities held consumer prices relatively constant as they gradually distributed $17.8 million received from Entergy as a share of profits made at Vermont Yankee from electricity sales during the winter of 2013-2914. That source disappears when the plant stops running.

Governors and politicians immediately responded with deep concern and even anger at such increases.   Why are these prices increasing so rapidly and what does this mean for the region? How will large-scale energy consumers such as IBM be impacted?

New England is losing non-gas power generation resources faster than they’re being replaced. ISO-New England (The New England electric grid operator) has announced that it will be losing about 3300 MW of generation capacity by 2016. Between early shutdowns of several large coal power plants, including the Salem Harbor Coal and Oil Power Station, and the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant, roughly 10% of ISO-NE’s reliable power generation capacity will stop operating during the next two years.

As power plants decommission over the next several years, their power output isn’t being replaced by new generation. This leads to an increased reliance on natural gas, distillate fuel oil, and hydro – the only available reliable generators – for power production. Regional hydroelectricity cannot expand beyond current capacity.

Oil-fueled electricity generation is substantially more expensive than other reliable power sources, hence the reason why it’s regarded as a peaking generator. Like natural gas, oil burned in power plants competes with heating demand. It also competes with diesel fuel customers. It’s advantage over gas in power generation is the ability to store a few days worth of fuel on site.

While natural gas is usually one of the cheapest producers of power, the region is struggling to balance residential consumption with the growing demand from power producers. Natural gas, which is almost as difficult to store as electricity, is often unavailable to New England power generators when it is needed the most.

Over the past 20 years, there has been virtually no investment in expanding supply pipelines in New England. When there is more demand for gas than the available pipelines can deliver, prices skyrocket, occasionally spiking by a factor of ten or more almost overnight. Between 2000 and 2013, the percentage of electricity on the New England grid coming from natural gas increased from 15% to 46%.

During the winter when residential consumer heating gets priority for natural gas because of the firm delivery contracts that distribution utilities sign, less supply is available for use in power generation. Over the past several years, residential demand has increased as more households move away from using heating oil. In January 2014, a strong cold-spell hit New England. This was a particularly strong cold-spell and residential gas demand reached record levels. Natural gas prices on the spot market rose as high as $120 / MMBTU from a pre-cold wave price of about $4-6 / MMBTU. Gas-fired generators without firm supply contracts could not afford that gas. Simultaneously, electricity demand spiked.

As oil-fired power stations came online to meet the grid demand, electricity prices spiked as high as $1290/MWh (compared to the annual average of $36/MWh) and consistently held over $200/MWh over hour-long periods. The obvious concern is that New England is going to be losing an additional 10% of its non-gas generation capacity inside of a 2 year period. Periods like those experienced in January are unfortunately going to become commonplace as oil becomes more heavily relied upon as a peaking energy source. The 30%+ price increases that we are seeing could be just the beginning. At least for the time being, the region’s energy prices are going to be held hostage by the price of natural gas.

With no new pipelines under construction and no non-gas predictable generating stations under construction, regional energy prices are going to remain high for the foreseeable future.

A new natural gas power plant will be sited at the former location of the Salem Harbor Coal and Oil Power Station. The plant will have a capacity of 700MW (roughly the size of Vermont Yankee) and the original plan was to have it online by June 2016. With an appeal made by a number of locals to the EPA holding up the construction of the facility, the original deadline is now unrealistic. Footprint Inc., the company planning the site, has requested that the anticipated start-up date be moved to June 2017, a twelve month delay.

Some of the largest capacity growth in the region is going to come from residential solar power. With current capacity hovering around 500MW throughout New England, by 2020, an additional 1500MW of capacity will be added. While this is significant (capacity equivalent to roughly 2 Vermont Yankees), it will do little to lower electricity prices on cold winter days.

Perhaps the most promising development for regional energy costs is a plan proposed by Spectra Energy Corp and Northeast Utilities to significantly expand the Algonquin Pipeline. The proposal, if approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, would allow for an additional 40 miles of pipeline and new compressor units. An additional 345 million cubic feet of natural gas daily, enough to heat about a million homes or fuel 2,000 MW of electric power plants running at constant load, would be brought to the region when the project is completed in 2018.

Those who are going to be hurt the most deeply are the employees currently working at the region’s largest manufacturing facilities. While electricity prices are temporarily dropping in Vermont – because of the $17.8 million payout from Vermont Yankee mentioned above – they will increase along with the rest of New England in the near future. While the exact implications for the GlobalFoundries facility in Essex are unknown, price increases beyond the 25% number can be expected.

Ultimately, the most important thing for politicians, business leaders and community figures to recognize is that it will take sacrifice to maintain the competitiveness of the region. To obtain stable prices, new power plants, power lines and pipelines will be required. While it’s easy for any of us to argue “Not In My Backyard”, we have to realize that in blocking useful pipelines or power plants, we are simply pushing the responsibilities and employment opportunities somewhere else.

Paterson’s plan for CO2 emission reductions

Windmills at the windmill farm Middelgrunden

Owen Paterson, who served as the UK’s environment secretary until a cabinet realignment during the summer of 2014, is planning to begin advocating a dramatic course change for his country’s energy policy. Instead of the wind-heavy plan that was developed by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) in order to attempt to implement […]

Read more »

Antinuclear activists are too modest

Jim Conca has published a couple of recent posts on Forbes.com about the premature closure of nuclear power plants in the United States. One titled Are California’s Carbon Goals Kaput? focuses on some of the environmental aspects of the San Onofre debacle; the other, titled Closing Vermont Nuclear Bad Business for Everyone focuses on the […]

Read more »

Purposeful price pumping by constraining supply

James Conca recently published a commentary on Forbes titled Closing Vermont Nuclear Bad Business For Everyone. A major thrust of Conca’s initial post was highlighting the rapidly rising prices of electricity in New England that are being driven by an increasing reliance on natural gas as reliable power generators like the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant […]

Read more »

Helping people understand the power grid

Yesterday, the Institute for Energy Research launched a project to help people gain a better understanding of the electric power grid, a marvel of modern society that most people take for granted — unless its product delivery is interrupted for more than a few minutes. This information project is timely, especially considering all of the […]

Read more »

Atomic Show #220 – Atoms for California

Wind farm land impact is not limited to turbine foundation

Andrew Benson from Atoms For California contacted me last week to find out if I was interested in having a conversation about the history of nuclear energy in California, with a special focus on the history of the antinuclear movement in that trend-setting state. It sounded like a great idea for an Atomic Show so […]

Read more »

Amory Lovins-speak: Three misleading statements in a 15 second sound bite

I had the opportunity to be in the audience during the above talk. You might notice my impolite interjections; I have often been accused of being very poor at hiding my real reactions and feelings. There is a reason why I stopped playing poker during game nights on the USS Stonewall Jackson. I was losing […]

Read more »

Uranium supply concerns associated with EEU

Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan signed an agreement to form a Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) on May 29. Uranium market watchers should pay close attention and understand the potential implications of the alliance on the stability of the world’s uranium supply, even though the alliance has been dismissed as unimportant by some media pundits. For example, […]

Read more »

Mark Cooper is wrong about SMRs and nuclear energy

Mark Cooper of the Vermont Law School has published another paper in a series critiquing the economics of nuclear energy; this one is titled The Economic Failure of Nuclear Power and the Development of a Low Carbon Electricity Future: Why Small Modular Reactors are Part of the Problem and Not the Solution. It is not […]

Read more »

Existing nuclear plants are valuable and worth saving

Many currently operating nuclear plants are in danger of being permanently shut down due to temporary conditions including low, but volatile natural gas prices, improperly designed markets that fail to recognize the value of reliable generating capacity, quotas and mandates that result in certain types of electrical generators receiving direct monetary payments in addition to […]

Read more »

Vermont Yankee and B&W mPower – Victims of Wall Street Greed

Though it has been a little quiet here on Atomic Insights in the past few days, I have been working on some stories documenting financial maneuvers in the US energy industry — especially as it related to nuclear energy. You might be interested in reading Save Vermont Yankee. If not you, who? If not now, […]

Read more »

Should anti-fossil expansion movement align with pro nuclear movement?

On April 11, 2014, Roger Annis, a member of the Vancouver Ecosocialist Group, gave a talk at the University of California Santa Barbara. The talk was titled Oil, tar sands, coal, natural gas: What’s behind the expansion drive of Canada’s and North America’s fossil fuel industries? It is a fascinating talk with some excellent slides […]

Read more »