GMP announces agreement with Great River Hydro to purchase clean, cost-effective, local and reliable power

For Immediate Release
Friday, March 4, 2021

Media Contact
Kristin Kelly, (802) 318-0872

COLCHESTER, Vt. — Green Mountain Power (GMP) today announced a power purchase agreement with Great River Hydro to provide clean, cost-effective, local and reliable power for customers. The power purchase agreement, subject to Public Utility Commission review and approval, is for 30 years starting in 2023.

The contract creates long-term stability in GMP’s power supply while also enabling opportunity for more local renewables as Vermont pushes to meet clean energy goals to combat climate change. GMP’s purchases from Great River Hydro’s local and regional facilities along the Connecticut and Deerfield rivers will increase over time, just as other GMP power supply agreements step down, but will cover a smaller portion of GMP’s load. This will create opportunity for other complementary local and regional renewables like solar and wind, especially as customers transition heating and transportation to clean electricity as a part of Vermont’s climate goals.

“We are focused on delivering clean, cost-effective, reliable power to our customers 24/7, 365. This resource fits really well in our portfolio and still leaves open tremendous availability for other renewable sources,” said GMP President and CEO Mari McClure. “Identifying and securing a clean, cost-effective, reliable source of power close to where Vermonters will use it is key to speeding up our transition to a 100 percent carbon-free and renewable power supply by 2030.”

The contract provides strong value to GMP’s customers, as the price is favorable compared to other long-term term contracts in the region. Great River Hydro’s resource provides both baseload and peaking energy, providing cost-effective, renewable power, including at times when that power is most needed.

“Great River Hydro’s capabilities are unlike any other renewable generator in the region, either existing or planned,” said Scott Hall, president and CEO of Great River Hydro. “Green Mountain Power is leading the way to a carbon-free future and had the foresight to recognize that clean, renewable resources like Great River Hydro’s will be absolutely critical to getting there. We’re pleased to be partnering with GMP to help them reach their goals.”

A leading Vermont business, Killington Ski Resort, welcomed news of GMP’s energy agreement, as the resort is also focused on sustainability.

“GMP’s long-term agreement for cost-effective, clean power helps the resort with our Play Forever corporate responsibility commitment to protecting the environment, and provides stability, something that is important for any business. GMP looks ahead for their customers and they’ve been a great partner for us,” said Mike Solimano, president and general manager at Killington Ski Resort.

The agreement, filed with the Vermont Public Utility Commission today, will be posted in the Regulatory section of GMP’s Website.

About Green Mountain Power

Green Mountain Power (GMP) serves approximately 266,000 residential and business customers in Vermont and is partnering with them to improve lives and transform communities. GMP is focused on a new way of doing business to meet the needs of customers with integrated energy services that help people use less energy and save money, while continuing to generate clean, cost-effective and reliable power in Vermont. GMP is the first utility in the world to get a B Corp certification, meeting rigorous social, environmental, accountability and transparency standards and committing to use business as a force for good. GMP earned a spot-on Fast Company’s Most Innovative Companies in the World list four years in a row (2017, 2018, 2019, 2020). In 2019 GMP was honored by the Vermont Chamber of Commerce and Vermont Business Magazine with the Deane C. Davis Outstanding Vermont Business of the Year Award.

About Great River Hydro, LLC

Great River Hydro (GRH) is New England’s largest conventional hydropower generator. GRH’s unique fleet pairs large quantities of reservoir storage with 13 sequentially located and highly coordinated hydropower stations to produce enough renewable, carbon-free electricity every year to power approximately 213,000 homes in the region. Great River Hydro’s facilities are located on the Connecticut and Deerfield Rivers in Vermont, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts.

Image courtesy of Great River Hydro

11 thoughts on “GMP announces agreement with Great River Hydro to purchase clean, cost-effective, local and reliable power

  1. My house was heated by electrons years ago. The electric bill was outrageous even with a system that tried to use electrons during low usage times. I switched to LP gas and hot water baseboards with an on demand heater. I picked LP because of reduced CO2. I have a greenhouse on the S side of my house for passive heating and a 20 solar panel array in my yard. Now they want me to switch back to electrons and put me at the mercy of one supplier. I don’t Fin think so.

  2. VT Yankees problems went far beyond Shumlin opposition which I agree was motivated by plot to install Green Energy Industrial Complex mandates to get rid of carbon and nuclear. VT Yankees problems went far beyond Shumlin opposition. Numerous sinkholes on site, spectacular cooling tower crash said it all, as well as Entergy Louisiana’s desperate attempt to unload a nuclear power plant which had fallen into a state of disrepair:
    MONTPELIER — Federal regulators scolded Vermont Yankee nuclear plant Wednesday over a collapsed cooling tower and unplanned shutdown and granted an anti-nuclear group’s request for extra scrutiny on the 20-year license extension the Vernon plant is seeking.

    The Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued an inspection report saying what a plant spokesman says Vermont Yankee had already concluded: that it wasn’t doing adequate inspections of a series of water-cooling towers at the plant before one of them collapsed in August. Entergy Nuclear, Vermont Yankee’s owner, “failed to recognize the importance of performing hands-on inspections”…
    As supporter of VT Yankee and nuclear power Republican Randy Brock infamously said:
    “Sen. Randy Brock, a Franklin Republican, joked that if anti-nuclear activists had infiltrated Entergy’s board of directors and management they couldn’t even come close to doing the damage to Vermont Yankee’s reputation that Entergy has over the last several months.”

  3. This is a recent lecture given by William Happer, Professor of Physics Emeritus, Princeton University on CO2 and climate change.

    Again, I classify it in the ‘facts matter’ category with the full understanding that everyone says that about everything they post. Nonetheless, it certainly won’t hurt anyone to watch and listen to Dr. Happer…. unless, of course, you count potential for hurt feelings or egos in the mix.

  4. If nothing else – this displaces wind and solar – no matter how small the contribution. While recognizing the downside cited from experts here on this thread it’s better than more of what we have?

  5. “Electrify everything” with Heat Pumps and Electric Vehicles?

    Electric school buses would reduce CO2 at the outrageous cost of $1633/metric ton, even higher, if the CO2 analysis were performed on the lifetime, A-to-Z basis

    Lifetime, A-to-Z Analysis Includes Combustion CO2 + Upstream CO2 + Embodied CO2 + Downstream CO2

    A much more realistic CO2-reduction analysis would be on a lifetime, A-to-Z basis.
    Such analyses regarding electric vehicles have been performed for at least 20 years. Engineers are very familiar with them.
    They would include:

    1) Upstream CO2 of energy for extraction, processing and transport to a user
    2) Embodied CO2 of expensive batteries, from extraction of materials to installation in a bus
    3) Embodied CO2 of $352,500 electric buses vs $100,000 diesel buses
    4) Embodied CO2 of balance-of-system components
    5) Embodied CO2 of much more expensive electric bus parking facilities, with a Level 2 charger for each bus, than for a diesel bus parking facility with a diesel pump.
    6) Downstream CO2 of disposal of batteries, etc.

    Any CO2 advantage of electric buses vs diesel buses would be minimal on a lifetime, A-to-Z basis.
    The cost of CO2 reduction would be much greater than $1633/metric ton.

    • Willem: The absurdity of the climate change collaboration is obvious. After all, consider the rap against cows, pigs, sheep and wildebeests, and the methane from their flatulence. I mean…really? In the final absurdity, we’ll be asked to commit suicide because, as humans, we’re so dangerous to the planet.

      On the other hand, electric vehicles are the way to go. The question is, how will the electricity be provided and stored? My guess is that guys like Elon Musk are going to figure this out sooner or later. But, in the meantime, you’re right. The current CO2 analysis is tantamount to a bunch of Henny Penny’s running around collecting the acorns that hit them on the head while walking in the forest.

      Maybe they’ll take their own future advice and leave us to suffer the consequences of our chosen existence. Theirs is the Aristotelian definition of ‘hubris’… the overweening presumption that leads a person to disregard the divinely fixed limits on human action in an ordered cosmos.

  6. Vermont has not been successful with its wind and solar projects
    After spending $2+ billion over 20 years, the net result was increased electricity prices, and INCREASED in CO2.

    Forcing/haranguing highly reliable Vermont Yankee to shut down ranks as one of the dummest “state energy programs”, ever.

    VY produced at low cost (less than 5c/kWh), and high capacity factor, 92+%, plus about 600 people lost their well-paying jobs, plus the VY surrounding area became economically depressed.

    The wind plant owners typically sell at 9 to 10 c/kWh to GMP, etc.
    This does not include:

    1) The cost of subsides
    2) Grid augmentation/expansion
    3) OTHER generators having to vary their outputs to counteract the forever-changing wind outputs

    Those generators have more CO2/MWh, because they:

    1) Have to operate at part load, say 75%, to ramp up 25% and ramp down 25%, to counteract the variations of wind and solar.
    2) Have more frequent start/stops.
    3) Have more MW of plant in synchronous mode, i.e., hot standby.
    4) Have more wear and tear
    5) And wind requires more grid augmentation/expansion, which releases CO2 to implement and operate.
    6) And wind requires detailed weather and wind forecasting, which releases CO2 to implement and operate.

    The net-metered solar system owners typically get 18 c/kWh, plus GMP gets 3.5 c/kWh for management, i.e., solar is charged to the GMP rate base at 21.5 c/kWh. That number will slowly decrease as newer STANDARD OFFER solar plants are added over the years.

    Remember, the NE grid wholesale price has been average less than 5 c/kWh, starting in 2009 (12 years), courtesy of near-zero CO2 nuclear plants, PLUS low-CO2, clean-burning, highly efficient gas plants.

    Wind and solar are good deals for multi-millionaires.


    Warren Buffett Quote: “I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire’s tax rate,” Buffet told an audience in Omaha, Nebraska recently. “For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”

  7. “We are focused on delivering clean, cost-effective, reliable power to our customers 24/7, 365.” Those plants do not have the capacity to do that. (I know because I was once an operator in some of them). Going further, the CT river and Deerfield plants were built and owned by the New England Power Company, that also once owned Green Mountain Power. GMP was separated by the Public Utilities Holding Act of 1933. The intention was to demonstrate efficiency and lower costs by separating generation and distribution. This purchase will reverse what history has shown to be a smart move.

  8. GMP President and CEO Mari McClure is quoted above:

    “We are focused on delivering clean, cost-effective, reliable power to our customers 24/7, 365. This resource fits really well in our portfolio and still leaves open tremendous availability for other renewable sources,”

    Now, the critical question for the renewable energy industry is: Will it be able to deliver clean, cost-effective and reliable power to customers 24/7, 365″ as required?

    And the answer to this question is a resounding NO…….Wind and solar have not demonstrated that they can deliver cost-effective and reliable power…….They fail on two of the three of the must have requirements, cost-effective and reliable. Standards must absolutely be met.

    This represents a serious problem for Vermont consumers, businesses, the Climate Council and most critically for the renewable energy industry, which must be able to deliver the goods 24/7, 365……And they can’t do it.

    • If you want to find the reasoning behind the push for solar power in Vermont, look no further than the Vermont Public Utility Commission, the three-member quasi-judicial panel that sets Vermont’s energy policy.

      Oh, and did I forget to mention that one of the three member PUC board members is none other than Margaret Cheney. Oh, and did I forget to mention that Ms. Cheney is none other than VT Rep. Peter Welch’s wife. Yes, that’s the same Peter Welch who sits on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce in the U.S. Congress. Go figure.

      • It goes well beyond the PUC, the Vermont legislature and Peter Shumlin are/were owned by the renewable energy industry and their joined at the hip advocacy organizations such VIPRIG, CLF and others who basically live under the Golden Dome.

        Even the UVM’s Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources is under the influence of the renewable energy industry through it Advisory Board Chaired by David Blittersdorf…….Are the students at Rubenstein being taught critical thinking or being indoctrinated?

        Bottom line, it’s about the money for the renewable energy sector and always has been going back to Shumlin running Vermont Yankee out of the State with the backing of the renewable energy industry.

        Nothing has changed in years except now there is an open admission coming from the Vermont legislature and beyond that none of this stuff will mitigate climate change at all. On 12/7/20, Rep. Scott Campbell a member of the House Committee on Technology and Energy said ” No one, least of all me, believes Vermont can stop climate change or even affect climate change”. This mean that every member of the House Committee on Tech & Environment also believes Vermont can do nothing to stop climate change……Yet these people vetted the legislation leading to the passage of the Global Warming Solutions Act.

        Vermont has two pandemics going…..Covid and a deeply embedded climate change ideology.

Comments are closed.