BARNET, Vt.Observers of the New England energy scene can be forgiven for asking �what were they thinking� when New England�s state energy planners backed wind projects such as Cape Wind (at an average...

BARNET, Vt.

Observers of the New England energy scene can be forgiven for asking �what were they thinking� when New England�s state energy planners backed wind projects such as Cape Wind (at an average of 25 cents per kilowatt hour) while opposing reliable, existing, low-cost sources such as Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant.

If they were thinking that New England would have endless amounts of �fracked� natural gas, they were wrong. Contrary to �expert� predictions of just a few years ago, demand has outstripped deliverable supply, causing prices to climb steadily and spike drastically when the weather is at its hottest and coldest. Furthermore, fracking is the new cause c�l�bre for some powerful environmental organizations and still banned in some states that are rich in this natural resource. In other words, even if our natural gas infrastructure�s delivery capacity is expanded, it is still not certain that the recent supply boom will continue.

If they were thinking that the region could always buy more Canadian hydro power, they were wrong. As with natural gas, there�s not enough transmission capacity. Efforts to build new power lines have yielded controversy and the costs associated with them, but no new cross-border transmission. This should have been secured before supporting the closure of the region�s existing large power generators.

And finally, if they were thinking that closing a big, base-load nuclear power plant would push New England utilities into the waiting arms of solar and wind power, they were wrong again. You simply cannot replace bulk base-load power generation with intermittent sources, so electric utilities were instead forced into the waiting arms of high carbon fossil fuels.

Now a higher percentage of the electricity consumed in Vermont is generated by coal, natural gas and oil than at any other time in recent memory. This will not be just a minor, short-term setback in pursuit of a green goal. Until technology overcomes intermittency�s inherent cost and transmission problems � and cost-effective battery storage is still well in the future � New England must continue to rely on traditional base load power generation.

State leaders thought that their foresight and strong-arm regulatory tactics would bend the region�s energy market to their will. The market is bent, but not as they had hoped. What we have is the worst-case scenario: higher emissions and higher prices that will damage New Englanders' quality of life and hike costs to business.

The new status quo � more carbon at a higher cost per kilowatt-hour � is unsatisfactory to both environmentalists and the business community. Therefore, regional leadership must now take steps to keep New England competitive and low-carbon emitting for at least the first half of the 21st century.

New England�s energy planners must limit expectations for intermittent power. While it is a growing and important part of a diverse generation portfolio for any region, its inherent intermittence means that traditional base-load power sources will be necessary well into the future. Only a large, ready supply of base-load power can maximize the potential to use intermittent renewable sources by offsetting their inherent cost and reliability fluctuations. Base-load power plants, especially from hydro and nuclear power, are our bridge to a clean energy future.

Other Northeastern states, notably blackout-wary New York, are discovering that energy diversity is good for grid reliability and cost competitiveness. More power from varying sources means more choices for grid operators. The more extreme New England�s weather becomes, the more we need a multitude of power sources, including those (such as nuclear) that are relatively weather-proof. Also, more power moves the law of supply and demand to the side of the consumer.

Second, New England�s energy planners must urge Congress to open the long-promised national nuclear spent-fuel repository. Spent-fuel storage is not the dangerous, insoluble problem anti-nuclear activists say it is. However, the feds failed to meet their legal obligation to create a single, safe storage facility. The problem is not technology, it�s politics.

Finally, New England�s energy planners must enhance the capacity of our regional energy infrastructure. Canada has thousands of megawatts to excess, produced from cleanly generated hydropower that they would love to sell us. However, we lack the transmission capacity to bring it south. Likewise, proposed natural gas projects would offset some electricity needs with a fuel that burns far cleaner than the out-of-state coal plants that Vermont is becoming increasingly reliant upon. Ultimately this is a failure of leadership, brought on by indecisiveness and ambivalence.

New England cannot control the external forces driving up the cost and carbon of electricity, but minimizing our financial and environmental costs will require tending to our own garden.

George Coppenrath is a former state senator from Vermont who served on the Natural Resources and Energy Committee.