A Bad Deal with Hydro-Québec
Authored by:
Meredith Angwin
Former project manager at Electric Power Research Institute. Chemist, writer, grandmother, and proponent of nuclear energy.Other Posts by Meredith Angwin
» Already a member? Login now to comment!
» Not a member? Register to comment!
A guest says:
Meredith,
I have to disagree somewhat about this one. The current HQ conitract is a fixed rate mortgage and no one liked that. It caused problems when the alternative market prices deviated substantially from the contract price. Under the fixed rate concept of the previous contract, Vermont paid many millions in costs that were above market price. This new one is based more on prevailing market prices, so it should stay more in line with the market, but avoiding the price spikes inherent in the market.
The chart below shows the Vermont prices for the months of 2010 as well as broker prices for futures contracts through 2014. As you can see, the market price for power never rises above the HQ contract price or the rumored Entergy offer. So under the fixed price model of the current HQ contract, we will continue to pay higher than market prices for power. (To be fair, the Current HQ contract is for delivery at certain hours that are specified by the buyer, so its value is higher than the generic market price - but still above them.)
| AvgDALMP | AvgRTLMP | ||
| 2010 | 1 | 60.87 | 62.84 |
| 2010 | 2 | 52.49 | 53.35 |
| 2010 | 3 | 37.91 | 38.95 |
| 2010 | 4 | 36.67 | 36.46 |
| 2010 | 5 | 46.32 | 50.25 |
| 2010 | 6 | 49.53 | 51.67 |
| 2010 | 7 | 62.58 | 60.82 |
| 2010 | 8 | 55.05 | 56.15 |
| 2010 | 9 | 46.31 | 48.12 |
| 2010 | 10 | 36.76 | 35.46 |
| 2010 | 11 | 44.18 | 41.45 |
| Cal ' 11 | $ 48.00 | |
| Cal '12 | $ 49.50 | |
| Cal ' 13 | $ 51.84 | |
| Cal ' 14 | $ 53.75 |
When the HQ dealwas negotiated in the late 80's it was supposed to be 20% less expensive than our least expensive alternative (a coal plant). Times changed and that turned out not to be true. HQ made concessoins to lower the cost and shifted elements of the contract to ease rate pressure. They have shown themselves to be a good trading partner.
In 2010, the Entergy contract price was 4.3 cents. In 2011 it will be 4.4 cents. Adjusting for losses and congestion it is pretty close to the broker price quoted above of 4.8 cents for 2011. I would also bet that the pricing of any new contract will have a variable mortgage component to it as well.
Secondly - what is wrong with making a profit? Entergy wants to make a profit, HQ want s to make a profit, Feed in tariff projects want to make a profit. If you take a risk, you should be able to reap a reward. No one is providing electricity as a public service.
Thirdly. Why is HQ power not renewable? All renewables (and nuclear) have some warts on them. Large hydro is no exception. However, this power is produced by falling water which is renewable. I would guess that whatever impacts accrue to large hydro are similar, but for the scale, to small hydro. Further, HQ has worked things out with the natives and is proceeding. You complain about the Feed in Tariff prices for small hydro, yet intimate that this is the way to go. You can't have it both ways.
The real point is is that there is room for many sources of "carbon light" energy (including efficiency) in our protfolio and the portfolio of the region. If there were a perfect solution, we would buy two of them and all go home. Any portfolio should have diversity, and that seems to be where we are heading.
Meredith Angwin says:
DaveL
Thank you for your thoughtful post. I am glad to hear that the HQ partnership has had renegotiation room and HQ has been a good partner in renegotiations. Thank you for the information.
On the other hand, I believe that using 2009 or 2010 as the example years for electricity prices is a bit misleading. These have been the lowest-price years for at least a decade. (There's been this recession happening.) Your forward prices are more interesting. Apparently, the market doesn't think we are going to get over the recession very quickly, or perhaps it thinks there will be abundant natural gas. If I had money to speculate, I would bet against this estimation and bet for rising electricity prices. However, I do not mean to dismiss the forward numbers. They may be right. I will say, however, that they are not certain. Also, as you correctly noted, those are prices for the entire year, day and night, not the hours that HQ will supply power. HQ will mostly be supplying power in the high-demand, high price hours.
Also in terms of pricing, I encourage you to look at the electricity price graph in this blog post
http://yesvy.blogspot.com/2010/10/inconvenient-truth-about-vermont-yanke...
You will see that prices have spent a significant portion of the past ten years above 6 cents. The graph comes from ISO-NE.
I believe you have missed my point about the variable market and the profits. I have no problem with companies making profits by selling electricity. I don't even have a problem with variable pricing,
However. Some context here. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for Vermont power purchases after 2012 with Entergy was signed in 2002. It said that for ten years after 2012:
- Entergy will sell at the market AND
- if the market goes above 6.1 cents, Entergy will split the extra money with the utilities.
This was a Revenue Sharing Agreement. If the market was below 6.1 cents, Entergy would just sell at the low market price. If electricity prices went up, there were estimates from the DPS (Department of Public Service) of Entergy returning tens to hundreds of millions of dollars to the utilities over the length of the contract. This money could have improved transmission lines, implemented the smart grid, or been returned to ratepayers in the form of lower prices.
The Senators and Representatives in Montpelier said this was totally unacceptable. That lousy Entergy wasn't giving them a fixed price! Those Entergy scumbuckets! What they try to get away with!
Actually, this MOU was a great deal for Vermont, because if the price was electricity was low, that is the price Vermont utilities would pay Entergy. If the price went up, Vermont got partially re-imbursed. And you should have heard the legislators screaming about this, endlessly. "You have to give us a fixed price!" So, now they have a fixed price, and they don't like that, either. From what I know, and I am NOT an Entergy insider by any means, Entergy would be quite happy to stay with the Memorandum of Understanding, but the legislators objected to it.
Instead, the legislators of Vermont are willing to take market-price power from HQ, support HQ profits, and support HQ jobs while letting Vermont people hit the unemployment lines. These are Vermont people whose company offered a better deal for Vermont than HQ did. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is a much better deal for Vermont than the HQ contract. The MOU is public, it includes revenue sharing, it's transparent, it's cheaper power, if only because of transmission costs at the same ISO price. End of story. It's a better deal for Vermont.
This answer is getting really long! Sorry. One more point. About big and small hydro. My point in the blog wasn't that big hydro was evil and small hydro was good. My point was that people in Vermont were willing to lay down and allow HQ to print their boots all over us, even getting our legislature to vote special names for HQ's power. Oh, we are so eager to please HQ! After all, they gave us a worse deal than Entergy was giving, so of course we are grateful. (sarcasm alert.)
By the way, I notice that you don't mention nuclear as part of carbon-light energy mix. An oversight, perhaps? Your comments are well-researched and thoughtful, and I hope they are not simply justification for Vermont accepting a lousy power contract--- because--- at least it isn't nuclear?
Rod Adams says:
@Meredith - I do happen to have a tiny bit of scratch that I use for speculative bets on the market. I just sold some CHK after making a 25% gain in the past couple of months ($21 at the end of October up to $26 today). CHK happens to be in the business of extracting and selling natural gas. It is one of the best in the business in the US. One of the reasons that its stock has done so well of late is that they have a successful hedging business full of traders who really know their stuff.
About a day or so ago I got a little blurb in my news wires that told me that CHK had managed to lock in prices for about 80% of its projected 1+ trillion cubic feet of 2011 gas production with a sales price of $5.84 per 1,000 cubic feet (MCF). That is about 33% higher than Bloomberg's price for that amount of natural gas
That indicates that there are some customers out there who are betting some big bucks that by the end of 2011, a firm price of $5.84 per MCF will look pretty good compared to the market.
That will have implications for the market price of electricity in New England, which is heavily dependent on natural gas being delivered through some congested pipes from places like Louisiana's Henry Hub - which is the location of the previously quoted prices.
Meredith Angwin says:
I totally agree. If gas prices are low, I would bet on them rising. If they are high, I would bet on them falling. They are very cyclical! Also, the ISO graph in my post shows ISO NE and New England gas prices in lockstep. Two lines on the graph..electricity prices, gas prices. Sometimes you can't tell them apart.
Rod Adams says:
@DaveL - I have to disagree strongly with one of your points.
You wrote
"If you take a risk, you should be able to reap a reward."
Real life does not work that way. If you take a risk, you have a CHANCE at reaping a reward. Sometimes you make a bad call and lose your shirt. That is why they call it "risk".
If you build the right product at the right price and can find a willing buyer, you might make a profit. If you build exactly the same product but it costs you three times as much to produce as your competitor, you will not find any willing buyers who will purchase yours at a price that is profitable to you as long as your competitor has any inventory left to sell.
Your statement about "Feed in tariff projects want to make a profit" with the implication that since they took a risk they deserve that profit makes me steam. Markets do not work that way. Everyone WANTS to make a profit, but some win, some lose and some should have stayed in bed.
Scott Edward Anderson is a consultant, blogger, and media commentator who blogs at The Green Skeptic. More »
Christine Hertzog is a consultant, author, and a professional explainer focused on Smart Grid. More »
Gary Hunt Gary is an Executive-in-Residence at Deloitte Investments with extensive experience in the energy & utility industries. More »
Jesse Jenkins is a graduate student and researcher at MIT with expertise in energy technology, policy, and innovation. More »
Jim Pierobon helps trade associations/NGOs, government agencies and companies communicate about cleaner energy solutions. More »
Geoffrey Styles is Managing Director of GSW Strategy Group, LLC and an award-winning blogger. More »
The Energy Collective
- YOU
- Rod Adams
- Scott Edward Anderson
- Charles Barton
- Barry Brook
- Dick DeBlasio
- Simon Donner
- Big Gav
- Michael Giberson
- James Greenberger
- Lou Grinzo
- Tyler Hamilton
- Christine Hertzog
- David Hone
- Gary Hunt
- Jesse Jenkins
- Sonita Lontoh
- Jesse Parent
- Jim Pierobon
- Vicky Portwain
- Tom Raftery
- Joseph Romm
- Robert Stavins
- Robert Stowe
- Geoffrey Styles
- Alex Trembath
- Gernot Wagner
- Dan Yurman

About Social Media Today






