by jboullion | Nov 11, 2008 | Uncategorized
Immediate release
November 11, 2008
More information
Michael Vickerman
608.332.1736 (cell)
608.819.0748 (office)
RENEW’s reaction to decision on Cassville plant
“In our eyes, Nelson Dewey 3 did not meet our criteria of a renewable energy facility,” said RENEW Executive Director Michael Vickerman. “The biomass component functioned as a sideshow to obscure the central premise of this plant, which is to burn nonrenewable Wyoming coal in a Wisconsin location. The truth is, there are far easier, more sustainable and less expensive ways to generate new sources of renewable energy in southwestern Wisconsin.”
“Approval of this plant, with its 80-20 coal-to-biomass fuel ratio, would actually make Governor Doyle’s goal of securing, by 2025, 25% of the energy from renewable energy resources a more difficult goal to attain,” Vickerman said. “We applaud the Commission for recognizing the incompatibility of Nelson Dewey 3 with the Administration’s environmental and economic development agenda.”
“Nelson Dewey 3 is an example of combining a 19th century fuel with 20th century combustion technology to tackle a 21st century problem,” Vickerman said. “We agree with the PSC that it clearly has no place in our future.”
Vickerman contrasted Alliant’s proposal with Xcel Energy’s recently announced proposal to convert Bay Front Power Plant in Ashland into a 100% biomass-fueled generating unit when completed. The proposal involves retrofitting an existing coal-fired unit with gasification technology to turn wood fuel and other biomass energy sources into a renewable gas, which will be fed into a new boiler.
“Unlike Nelson Dewey 3, what Xcel proposes to do would actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions from Wisconsin sources, not add to them,” Vickerman said. “Xcel’s initiative would actually reduce the state’s dependence on imported fossil fuels, not increase it.”
“The fact is, biomass energy generation can stand on its own two feet in the 21st century. Wisconsin doesn’t need a new coal plant just to make biomass a viable fuel. In fact, the state doesn’t need a coal plant, period,” Vickerman said.
END
RENEW Wisconsin is an independent, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that acts as a catalyst to advance a sustainable energy future through public policy and private sector initiatives. More information on RENEW’s Web site at www.renewwisconsin.org.
by jboullion | Oct 21, 2008 | Uncategorized
From a media release issued by Alliant:
MADISON, WI – October 17, 2008 – A decision on the future of the Nelson Dewey Generating Station is just weeks away. The final phase of the regulatory process kicked off today, as Wisconsin Power and Light Company (WPL), a subsidiary of Alliant Energy Corporation (NYSE: LNT), filed its . . . brief in the case.
The brief highlights that no generating facility in Wisconsin history has ever provided the varied benefits that Nelson Dewey 3 will bring. These benefits include helping to jump start the biofuels economy in Wisconsin and establishing an estimated $50 million dollars annually in economic development from that market, creating much-needed jobs for southwest Wisconsin during the construction and operation of the plant, and increasing the transmission import capability into the state by as much as 600 megawatts.
Also addressed in the brief is the importance of strong ratemaking principles to the project. Ratemaking principles define how construction costs will be recovered in utility rates throughout the life of the generating facility. “These are clearly challenging economic times for all of us,” said William D. Harvey, Chairman, President, and CEO – Alliant Energy. “We are thankful that, in Wisconsin, our regulators have the ability to fix the financial parameters for the lifetime of the project. That certainty can help provide our customers and our company with stability, which, now more than ever, is critical.”
The proposed 300 megawatt plant will have the ability to burn not only coal, but also switchgrass (native prairie grass), corn stalks and waste wood from area fields and forests. The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSCW) is considering WPL’s proposal, with final briefs in the docket due at the end of this month. The PSCW is expected to issue an oral decision about the future of the project in mid-November, with a written order due in mid-December.
by jboullion | Aug 13, 2008 | Uncategorized
From an editorial in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
With all of the praise over the settlement reached this week on We Energies’ Oak Creek power plants, one might be tempted to ask, “What’s wrong with this picture?” Turns out, apparently nothing is. The deal allows We Energies and its two utility partners in the Oak Creek project to finish construction in a timely manner, provides needed help for Lake Michigan and expands renewable energy in Wisconsin.
And while the $105 million settlement will be paid for by electric customers ($100 million) and shareholders ($5 million), the price tag will be far less than it could have been under a protracted legal battle over the plant’s cooling system. We hope that next time the issues can be settled without going to court, but the utilities involved and the environmental groups who fought the plant deserve credit for reaching a compromise that serves everyone.
The issue settled this week was a dispute over the water intake system that We Energies will deploy to draw 1.8 billion gallons of Lake Michigan water per day for cooling at the new power plant. Environmental groups opposed the intake pipe and were demanding that the utility construct more expensive cooling towers.
by jboullion | Aug 11, 2008 | Uncategorized
From the testimony submitted by Michael Vickerman on behalf of RENEW Wisconsin filed with the Public Service Commission on August 11, 2008:
In my testimony I will survey the windpower prospects under development by independent power producers (IPP’s) in the parts of Wisconsin served by WPL. This information will include an estimate of their annual production (in the aggregate) as well as the current permitting and interconnection status for each prospect. The second half of my testimony outlines RENEW’s concerns with WPL’s proposal to co-fire biomass at Nelson Dewey 3 [proposed Cassville plant] . . . .
There are seven IPP-owned wind prospects under development. All range in generating capacity from 50 MW to 100 MW, totaling 609 MW altogether. . . .
RENEW’s reservations about WPL’s stated plans to co-fire biomass at NED3 flow from the specifics of the proposal. RENEW strongly supports using biomass for space and process heating. RENEW also supports generating electricity from dedicated biomass facilities that are considerably smaller than a new baseload facility.
One reservation we have this proposal is the idea of marrying a low-grade biomass fuel to a very expensive new power station with a capacity cost of about $4,000/kW. There are less expensive avenues for acquiring renewable energy, such as windpower, that have lower capital costs and zero fuel costs. There are also less expensive venues for burning biomass for electricity, such as the soon-to-be-retrofitted E. J. Stoneman plant or Xcel’s Bay Front 3 unit. Unlike building a new 300 MW coal plant, retrofitting those power stations to burn biomass fuel won’t require a capital investment in excess of $1 billion. It is a far more efficient use of ratepayer dollars to wed biomass fuel with smaller power stations (<50 MW) than with a larger and very expensive brand-new power plant. With smaller power plants, it is possible to configure them as dedicated biomass generating units. This is not possible with a 300 MW facility.
RENEW’s second reservation is triggered by the configuration of NED3. WPL’s selection of a circulating fluidized bed combustion boiler creates an opportunity to co-fire biomass energy sources at NED3. WPL’s plans, however, call for the biomass fuel to supplement the coal being fed into the boiler, which could easily be fueled with 100% coal. There is nothing about the boiler design that is dedicated specifically to biomass generation. Coal is the mainstay in this configuration, while biomass is simply an opportunity fuel to be used when available. The possibility of being unable to acquire enough biomass fuel for co-firing will not in any way hinder the operation of NED3, because there will always be enough coal on hand to operate the plant at its full rated capacity. Also, because the biomass portion of the plant’s output can vary, depending on how much biomass fuel is available, there is no possible way to predict how many renewable kilowatt-hours will be produced at the plant. Depending on NED’s variable biomass output to help satisfy in-state renewable energy requirements introduces a level of risk that can be avoided by relying on other renewable generation strategies.
Our third reservation stems from WPL’s need to lock up significant supplies of fuel sources of wood and energy at a lower cost than what the same resources would fetch in other markets, especially the biomass thermal market. As a general proposition, burning biomass in an electricity-only facility is a low-value use for a resource that can deliver substantially more energy to an end-user in the form of space and process heat. If biomass is burned at NED3, two-thirds of the energy value of the fuel, be it wood, agricultural residues, or switchgrass, is discharged into the atmosphere. In contrast, a modern wood-fired heating system serving a forest products company can convert 65% of the energy embedded in the fuelwood to useful heat. The higher the conversion factor of a particular energy application, the greater the energy return, which generally translates into a higher economic return. Thermal market participants are well-positioned to pay top dollar for the fuel they use, because they receive an energy return that is double what the same fuel yields when burned in a biomass electric facility. Because NED3 will, if approved, have a low thermal efficiency, WPL would be at a disadvantage if forced to match the prevailing biomass fuel price set by thermal market participants in order to secure upwards of 300,000 tons of biomass a year. . . .
In response to a rebutal of his testimony by one of Alliant’s expert witnesses, Vickerman said:
WPL’s 60 MW biomass initiative is piggybacked on a power plant that, if approved and built, would add four times as much coal-fired capacity estimated to cost more than $4,000/kW.
by jboullion | Aug 11, 2008 | Uncategorized
From a story by Tom Content in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
Fielding calls from folks on Wall Street isn’t in the typical job description for someone working for a conservation group.
Opponents of an Oak Creek power plant reached a deal that will provide money to address environmental issues.
But the calls were about the costliest construction project in state history, the $2.3 billion We Energies power plant being built in Oak Creek.
Jittery stock analysts visited with representatives of Clean Wisconsin in Madison this spring, wanting to know whether its eight-year dispute over the building of a coal-fired generating plant could be resolved.
Those jitters were restraining the company’s stock price and were a key driver behind the settlement reached between We Energies and environmental groups. A deal was reached just hours before utility executives were scheduled to field questions from analysts about the plant’s status.
The settlement ended the last piece of litigation, which was being fought over the power plant’s cooling system. It not only removed hurdles to the plant’s opening, it also meant costly cooling towers wouldn’t have to be built.
Clean Wisconsin and the Sierra Club, in turn, won utility company commitments on a couple of high-profile environmental issues — the Great Lakes and global warming.
Although the deal was in the works for six months, it didn’t get done until utility executives faced their quarterly conference call with investors.
“They were clear they wanted to settle this thing before that analyst call,” said Katie Nekola, energy program director at Clean Wisconsin.
“We wanted to communicate that certainty could be accomplished. That is very true,” said Barry McNulty, We Energies spokesman.
