1. Vermont Electricity Overview -- Richard Watts, June 9, 2004

2. 2001 Electric Use

3. Vermont’s Electric Needs 1,000 MW peak demand now –Growing at about 2 MW per year since 1992; 100 MW 1984-92, But 550 MW will need to be replaced in 2012- 2015 timeframe!! Current Sources –Vermont Yankee - about 30% demand and 36% energy Contract Expires 2012 –Hydro Quebec - about 30% demand and 32% energy Contract expires from 2012 to 2020, most expiring in 2015 –Independent Power Producers - about 10% demand and 5% energy (all renewable) Contracts expire 2008 to 2020+ Other sources - about 30% of demand and 27% of energy

4. Vermont Gross Electric Energy by Source 1980-2001

5. Slow growth in annual peak, summer peak rising faster

6. Load Forecast

7. Positive steps: Since 1984 peak demand in VT has risen by ~125 MW, all met by new, in-state renewables 40 MW - small hydro, IPP, WEC, GMP 73 MW - McNeil and Ryegate wood chip plants 6 MW - Searsburg wind project small landfill gas projects – Brattleboro and Burlington Vermont utilities’ energy efficiency efforts, including Efficiency Vermont, have saved over 80 MW of demand Bottom line – current portfolio mix is very high in renewables, and America’s lowest in CO2 BUT – VT still imports a large % of our electricity

8.  VT Yankee  Shift to Fossil Plants  New Cogen and Distributed Gen in VT  Efficiency and Load Management  Ride the Spot Market  Add Renewables  Imported Hydro (HQ or Lower Churchill)  Connecticut and Deerfield River Dams  Blended Balance Major Resource Options Where Can We Go From Here? Different Solutions May be Viewed Differently by Each Utility

9. Other Resource Alternatives Transmission –Exports the generation siting issue –Creates a new siting issue Demand Side Resources –Energy efficiency –Demand response –Customer-sited generation Can local resources avoid power lines?

10. Reliance on Existing Paradigm Big power lines Big plants (300) Generation meets Load -- 1/60 th of Second

11. Vermont Reliability Problem  Electric Demand is Increasing - Vermont’s Summer Peak Demand has increased 9% since 1999 -Vermont double peaking (summer ~ winter)  Existing Transmission System is at Capacity - No major additions since early 1980’s (i.e., new lines); -90% of power used on a peak day moves over the transmission system; -Equipment failure a major concern (e.g., Plattsburgh PAR, Highgate Converter); -Recent investment ($32 M/4 years) has extracted available capacity without building new lines.  No New Power Plants in Vermont -~ 10,000 MW of New Power Plants in New England (25,000 MW peak)  Compliance with Regional Reliability Criteria (e.g., NPCC/Nepool/ISO-NE) a major concern - ISO New England identified “severe reliability problems” in Vermont -Problems could affect large portions of Vermont

12. Solving the Reliability Problem  Reduce Electric Demand  Energy Efficiency/ Demand Response Programs  Cost & rate of acquisition questions.  Build power plants in NW VT  Additional infrastructure needed;  Cost of fuel (natural gas) a concern;  New England generation market saturated;  Vermont power supply portfolio adequate;  Permitting challenges—air emissions, noise, & cost.  Expand transmission system to increase system capacity  Requires extensive upgrades-aesthetic & land use impacts.  Combination of the all three

13. NRP Information  Schedule is critical  Need to address reliability problem today;  The cost of the NRP will be shared with the rest of New England if it is in service by December of 2007;  Regulatory approval by spring 2004 very helpful.  NRP Cost estimated at $128 million  Pool Transmission Facilities: $121.2(4.35) = $5.3 M  Non PTF = $6.7 M  VT Total$12.0 M  Supplemental adds $.7M to PTF, $.4M to non PTF  Project supported by :  Associated Industries of Vermont, Addison County Chamber of Commerce, Addison County Economic Development Corporation, Greater Burlington Investment Corporation, IBM, Lake Champlain Chamber of Commerce, Renewable Energy Vermont, Vermont Area Snow Travelers, Vermont Chamber of Commerce, & others

14. Efficiency is Cheaper

15. Natural Gas Prices Have Increased

16. Who Decides?

17. Why Citizen Participation? Instrumental Normative Substantive

18. Now is the time to have a conversation about where we’re going to generate our power.” (1/26/03 BFP)

19. Does Participation Reduce Conflict?

20. DPS Energy Plan Rigorous Decision Analysis Techniques The plan does not mention a role for the public in planning Vermont’s energy future. There is little or no acknowledgement in the plan that the public may have ideas or knowledge to communicate. A word search through the 2004 Draft Energy plan reveals that nowhere in this document are the terms “public involvement” or “citizen participation” used. No public participation strategies are offered, but an entire chapter is devoted to explaining an expert-managed process for decision-making. The only role mentioned for the public is on the last page of the plan where public meetings are referenced in the context of legal requirements for these meetings.

21. Mechanisms for Participation Public Meetings Public Hearings Advisory Groups Focus groups Citizen Juries

22. Deliberative Face-to-face conversation Make sense together

23. Experts Equal Access to experts Experts not privileged Technical Issues to Hide Value Issues

24. Is this Participation?

25. Conclusions Looking at the state, Vermont needs to make a major commitment for new power sources before 2015 Some smaller utilities have more immediate needs There needs to be a public process, a “statewide” conversation about how we get there.