Plan ignores effectiveness of supporting renewable energy as the most effective way of cutting costs

ENERGY ISSUES

The recent update of the 2014 10-year State Energy Strategy was principally the product of two of Governor Sununu’s staffers, neither of whom had prior expertise in energy policy.

The Union Leader has praised the updated strategy, but praise is wholly unwarranted. In fact, the so-called “update” is more accurately described as a “down-date.” Rather than an update, it was a near wholesale reversal of the priorities of the 2014 strategy.

It starts with the canard that New Hampshire suffers from uniquely high costs for electricity. The truth is that New Hampshire is in the middle of energy costs in New England and, although the region does have higher rates than some other parts of the country, this is not a serious threat to economic expansion here. Part of the reason for this is that, even with somewhat higher rates than, for example, the Southeast, New Hampshire does not have substantially higher bills, ranking 21st.

This is because our businesses and residential customers have found ways to reduce their demand. The real barrier to business expansion in New Hampshire is not energy costs; it is workforce and workforce housing.

It was telling that Governor Sununu’s example of the detrimental effect of New Hampshire’s supposed high costs was Hitchiner Manufacturing, which was planning an expansion but supposedly considered not choosing the Granite State. Hitchiner, in fact, moved ahead with its planned New Hampshire expansion — hardly a telling example of the adverse effects of New Hampshire’s electric costs.

The good news is that the strategy continues to advocate for maximizing all cost-effective energy efficiency.

This is the lowest-cost strategy to lower costs. Much evidence shows that for every dollar invested in costeffective energy efficiency, we get a $4 return.

The good news ends there. Some issues: The strategy suggests that we declare nuclear power a renewable resource. It isn’t. The uranium fuel rods cannot be reused and, after irradiation, end up as the deadliest industrial waste in human history. Furthermore, the idea, recently expressed by a spokesman for the nuclear industry, that nuclear power deserves ratepayer support — i.e., a subsidy — because it is non-carbon emitting, is surprising, given that the strategy decries support for other nonemitting sources, such as solar and wind.

Not too long ago, New England hosted nine nuclear power reactors. Today only four remain in operation, and one of those, the Pilgrim plant in Plymouth, Mass., is due to close next spring. None of these plants was closed by regulatory order; all were shuttered by their owners’ inability to run them profitably in a competitive market.

On transportation, the strategy suggests that we “put people in full car seats, not train cars.” But everyone knows that if we restore our tracks so that passenger rail is again available in south central New Hampshire, those improved rails will carry not just commuters but freight, since moving freight by rail is far more efficient than using trucks.

And the strategy suggests that New Hampshire back off from its support for renewable energy even though we still are by law committed to obtaining 25% of electric supply from renewables by 2025. The argument is that renewables, and especially solar, get subsidies. The authors apparently don’t have similar problems with the vast array of subsidies for traditional sources, including coal, oil and nuclear.

Even our modest support for solar will help us lower costs. Solar, especially when combined with the rapid development of storage technologies, will enable us to cut demand at its highest — and therefore most costly — point, thereby saving the energy sector big dollars. The most expensive power is always that used to meet peak demand.

The strategy is not only disappointing on its substance, but because the authors chose to ignore the vast preponderance of the public opinion they solicited in various stakeholder meetings. Ditto for the vast majority of public comments they received.

New Hampshire already lags our neighbors in advancing to a more efficient and cleaner energy future.

This “down-date” will not help us get back into a more competitive position with Massachusetts, Vermont or Connecticut. It is a big step indeed, but in the wrong direction.

Bob Backus of Manchester is a former chair of the New Hampshire House Committee on Science, Technology and Energy.