by jboullion | Feb 15, 2013 | Uncategorized
More on the Highland Wind Farm PSC decision: an article by Thomas Content of the Journal Sentinel:
State regulators on Thursday rejected an application to build a new wind farm in St. Croix County, citing concerns about turbine noise the project would generate for nearby homes.
The state Public Service Commission voted 2-to-1 to reject Emerging Energies’ proposal to build the Highland wind farm, which was proposed to generate 102.5 megawatts of power from 41 turbines, or eough to supply about 30,000 homes.
Commissioners said that they were rejecting the proposal “without prejudice,” in essence leaving the door open for the developer to file a new application for the project, after it conducts a new noise study using more conservative assumptions about the background noise in the area.
The $250 million Highland project is the first wind farm to be ruled on by the state commission since Republican Gov. Scott Walker appointed two commissioners, a majority of the three-member panel.
Emerging Energies representative Jay Mundinger said after the vote the developer plans to continue its pursuit of a permit for the project.
Commissioner Eric Callisto, the lone remaining appointee of former Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle, said he would have approved the project but would have attached conditions binding the developer to protect nearby landowners from excessive turbine noise.
Noise studies by the applicant found that 20 homes would experience noise levels above the 45 decibel standard at night, but the commission could work with the developer on “micro-siting” issues after new analysis was done, he said.
The Highland project is the only large wind energy project currently in active development in the state. The state’s utilities have already built enough wind farms to comply with the Wisconsin renewable portfolio standard, which requires that 10% of the state’s electricity come from renewable sources by 2015.
During the commission’s meeting in Madison, commissioner Ellen Nowak said the applicant didn’t prove that all the wind project would result in noise levels below 45 decibels at night, the standard that’s in Wisconsin’s wind siting rule.
As a result, she said she concluded the project was not in the public interest.
In their decision, the PSC commissioners decided not to attach special requirements concerning low-frequency noise, after wind consultants studied the impacts of low frequency noise from wind turbines the same developer built near Green Bay.
Reached after the meeting, Mundinger said Emerging Energies would take the commissioners’ noise concerns into account but was not giving up on the project.
“We believe that sound, from what we’ve heard, is a big concern, and we believe we can address that and we believe we have a pathway to get the (project permit) in short form,” he said. “We want to make sure we address the sound and be able to move this project forward.”
The company has offered not to use the kind of turbine that it used when developing the Brown County wind farm — the tallest towers built so far in Wisconsin. Instead, Emerging Emergies has agreed to use two other turbines that don’t generate as much sound, he said.
PSC commissioners said they would not approve the project if it used the loudest of the three turbines Emerging Energies had been considering.
“The turbines are better than ever before,” Mundinger said. “They’re quieter than the ones just 10 years ago.”
Peter McKeever, attorney for the Forest Voice, a group that mobilized in opposition to the wind farm,said he was pleased with the commission’s decision.
Wind farms are difficult to build in Wisconsin because the state’s dairy farming heritage and land use history resulted in smaller farms being closer together rather than large farms that are farther apart on the Great Plains, he said.
“If we want wind to be a really viable energy source we have to get smart about siting wind farms in Wisconsin,” he said.
The state should be leery of developing projects where homeowners could experience problems similar to those found in the Green Bay area project, McKeever said.
At issue in this case is one of the variables in that model – an estimate of how much sound would be absorbed by the ground when the wind turbines are spinning.
In this case, the commission essentially asked Emerging Energies to assume a worst-case scenario: That the 45-decibel standard will be met at all times, even when there is totally reflective ground – hard frozen ground with no snow or vegetation on it.
The commission adopted a more stringent noise requirement than it did when it approved its most recent wind farm, the We Energies Glacier Hills Wind Park, in 2010, said Katie Nekola, general counsel at the conservation group Clean Wisconsin. However, in that case, there was no challenge to the assumptions used by We Energies in its turbine noise modeling.
She expressed hope that the decision would be a temporary setback for the Highland project.
See the original posting of this article here.
by jboullion | Feb 14, 2013 | Uncategorized
Today, the Public Service Commission denied the Highland Wind Farm application. This is unbelievable, and disappointing. See the press release below:
For Immediate Release
February 14, 2013
Contact: Kristin Ruesch or Matt Pagel, 608-266-9600
Kristin.Ruesch@wisconsin.gov or Matt.Pagel@wisconsin.gov
PSC Issues Decision on Highland Wind Farm Application
MADISON – Today the members of the Public Service Commission decided, on a 2-1 vote, to deny an application of Highland Wind Farm, LLC, for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct a 102.5 Megawatt (MW) Wind Electric Facility in the Towns of Forest and Cylon in St. Croix County.
The majority commissioners determined a clearer record and a better demonstration that noise from the wind turbines would not exceed Commission standards was needed before making a decision to grant a CPCN. Highland Wind Farm, LLC, will be able to reapply to the Commission if an improvement to modeling and additional information is presented in a subsequent application.
Background Information on the Application
In December of 2011, Highland Wind Farm, LLC, filed an application with the Commission for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) to construct a new wind electric generation facility. The project would have included the construction of up to 44 wind turbines, with an electric generating capacity of up to 102.5 megawatts.
Since the application was received, the Commission granted requests to intervene in the proceeding to Clean Wisconsin, Forest Voice, Inc., RENEW Wisconsin, and the Town of Forest, and granted intervenor compensation requests to Clean Wisconsin and Forest Voice. The Commission held multiple technical hearings in Madison; held public hearings in the project area, and accepted expert and public comments online and via U.S. mail. All documents, testimony, and comments submitted in the proceeding are available to the public at the PSC web site, http://psc.wi.gov, by entering docket number 2535-CE-100 in the Electronic Regulatory Filing System.
###
by jboullion | Jan 24, 2013 | Uncategorized
Just before RENEW’s policy summit, the keynote speaker, former Governor of Colorado, Bill Ritter, did an excellent interview on Milwaukee Public Radio. Listen to the interview below, or read the article “Colorado’s Renewable Energy Economy Offers Model for Wisconsin” with Susan Bence (attached below).
The Port of Milwaukee announced this week that the wind turbine that supplies energy to the port’s administration building has been paying dividends to the city. In less than a year of operation, the turbine shifted electrical costs at the port by almost $15,000 dollars. In fact, the electrical utility actually paid the port for the surplus energy it produced.
|
| Bill Ritter, delivering the keynote at RENEW ‘s Summit |
This news is likely music to the ears of former Colorado Governor Bill Ritter, who championed alternative sources of energy during his time in office. Ritter is now the Director for the Center for the New Energy Economy at Colorado State University, where he is helping states across the country create plans to implement renewable energy economies. And he’s in Wisconsin this week as the keynote speaker at the RENEW’s Energy Policy Summit in Madison.
Aggressive renewable energy standards
Ritter says energy issues first emerged as a priority in his political career when he was campaigning for governor in 2005 and 2006. His campaign focused on renewable energy as a way to move Colorado forward and it became a pillar of his administration’s agenda. Once in office, he signed 57 clean energy bills.
Now Colorado is one of the leaders in the country when it comes to alternative energy. Ritter says the state is on the path to supplying 30 percent renewable energy by 2020, “one of the most aggressive renewable energy standards in America.”
Today, Wisconsin has a renewable energy standard of 10 percent by 2015, but Ritter says a lot of that power comes from outside the state, whereas Colorado’s is mostly in-state.
“Actually our cost of power relative to the rest of America has gotten cheaper as we’ve pushed this very aggressive clean energy agenda,” he says. “We had a day last April where our primary and best run utility got 57 percent of all its energy that it provided Colorado customers from wind alone.”
Building a ‘new energy economy’
Of course, the cost has gone down because of broad deployment of such methods. In building this “new energy economy,” Ritter says Colorado attracted manufacturing companies that focused on wind and solar energy, and promoted research and development among private companies and government entities.
“We really have this ecosystem built around advanced energy or clean energy, and really trying to say, ‘It could be domestic, it could be clean, it could help us create job and we can protect rate fares in the process,’” he says.
Facing challenges
But Ritter admits creating this “new energy economy” didn’t come without its hurdles. Some utilities and critics opposed the government creating a renewable energy standard, which at first was 10 percent by 2015.
“People say we don’t like standards because it’s a mandate,” Ritter says. “Quite frankly the entirely energy sector has been heavily regulated since it’s inception, and so to say something like renewable energy standards are a mandate and we should do away with it, I think it’s just wrong, because everything in energy is based on regulation. It is not the operation of free market and it’s that way by intention.”
So voters went to the ballot and passed the standard. Soon, after the state legislature put in a rate cap, the utilities were on board, approving of a doubling of the standard and eventually a tripling of it. Ritter says that’s because the utilities saw that they could make the benchmark, they could hold rates in check and get returns on their investment, and they could make customers happy.
“Actually our cost of power relative to the rest of America has gotten cheaper as we’ve pushed this very aggressive clean energy agenda.” -former Colorado governor Bill Ritter
Dealing with the utilities was not the only problem the state encountered in getting behind renewable energy. The coal industry, which provided many mining jobs in the state, felt their market share was being taken by renewable energy. A plan to pay residents who built their own system and put power back onto the grid required some finagling. And naturally, political adversaries made it difficult for the legislation to get to Ritter’s desk.
“I think the public liked it and got it, but I still had a difficult time politically with it, even with public support, because it doesn’t have the sort of intensity, the political intensity, that other issues might like the economy or job creation,” Ritter says.
He says his opponents claimed such an energy policy would lose jobs in the state, at a time when job creation was at a premium.
“That was really an awful thing to have said about you,” he says. “But our clean energy and clean tech sector wound up being the only sector that grew during the worst recession since the Great Depression in Colorado.”
Now Colorado is second in the country for solar jobs and number one per capita for employment for clean energy jobs overall, Ritter says.
Pushing the agenda
Based on his experience in Colorado, Ritter has some advice for Wisconsin in committing to renewable energy, which he says works handily with a free market. Leasing solar installations on buildings is one way to start.
“Last year over 80 percent of the rooftops in Colorado that installed solar were leased systems, so it’s a great economic development driver,” he says, citing similar success in California and Arizona.
At the Center for the New Energy Economy, Ritter says he is trying to push this whole agenda forward at the state level, from the financing to the R&D on advanced energy technologies to the practical implementation.
“How do we push this whole agenda forward at the state level, so a state can look at their energy economy and say, ‘We’re really about the 21st century,” and we’re tying domestic energy use with environmental issues, (and) economic development,” he says.
See the original article here.
by jboullion | Dec 14, 2012 | Uncategorized
Neither encouraged nor discouraged by state legislative election results, RENEW Wisconsin will hold its second annual energy policy summit to shape policy initiatives that will increase customer-driven renewable installations in 2013 and beyond. Register now!
Set for Friday, January 11, 2013 in Madison, RENEW Wisconsin’s summit, called Powering Positive Action, will synthesize the ideas and aspirations of business leaders, elected officials, and clean energy advocates into an achievable policy agenda.
This year a bipartisan legislative panel will outline their energy policy goals and identify specific initiatives that can move forward in the upcoming session.
Senators Dale Schultz (R-Richland Center) and Jennifer Shilling (D-La Crosse), and Representatives Chris Taylor (D-Madison) and Gary Tauchen (R-Bonduel), and Chris Schoenherr, Deputy Secretary of the Department of Administration, have agreed to take part in the legislative panel.
Other plenary sessions will focus on policies and practices that advance jobs and economic development through in-state development of renewable energy. One promising initiative vigorously promoted by RENEW, called Clean Energy Choice, would allow businesses and residential households to directly access clean energy produced on their premises from third party-owned systems.
We would like policymakers to hear company representatives discuss the fit between on-site renewables and their ability to remain competitive in a period of great energy transition.
Over the lunch hour, RENEW will recognize a host of pioneering businesses that are advancing renewable energy use in Wisconsin. This year several businesses and nonprofits took the reins of the renewable energy marketplace, and we wish to honor their outstanding achievements.
Former Colorado governor Bill Ritter will deliver the keynote address. During his two terms, Ritter championed several innovative policies that are now fueling one of the healthiest energy economies in the nation.
Click to see registration details and other information about RENEW’s 2013 Energy Policy Summit.
var so = new SWFObject(‘https://www.regonline.com/documents/web/widgets/widget_001.swf’, ‘widget’, ‘300’, ‘115’, ‘8’, ”);so.addParam(‘wmode’, ‘transparent’);so.addVariable(‘url’, ‘http://www.regonline.com/eventinfo.asp?eventid=1144779’);so.addVariable(‘date’, ‘1/11/2013’);so.addVariable(‘title’, ‘Powering Positive Action!’);so.addVariable(‘location’, ‘Madison, WI’);so.addVariable(‘cMain’, ‘#336699’);so.addVariable(‘cSecond’, ‘#ff9900’);so.write(‘flashContent104053’);
|
RENEW thanks our current Summit sponsors:
Breakout Sponsors
DVO | Anaerobic Digesters – Bioenergy Session
American Wind Energy Association – Wind Session
Champion Sponsors
Cullen Weston Pines and Bach
Organic Valley
W. W. Williams
Advocate Sponsors
Danfoss
Madison Solar
Michael Best and Friedrich, LLP
Prairie Solar Power & Light
Stantec
Western Technical College
Supporter Sponsors
Baker Tilly
Clean Wisconsin
C.R. Boardman
Michels Corporation
Midwest Renewable Energy Association
Sierra Club – John Muir Chapter
Werner Electric Supply
by jboullion | Dec 7, 2012 | Uncategorized
Michael Vickerman’s commentary in Midwest Energy News on the recent changes in WI renewable energy. Find the original post here.
Commentary: How Wisconsin regulators ‘tax’ renewable energy
 |
| RENEW Wisconsin’s Michael Vickerman |
Starting next January, the price of purchasing renewable energy voluntarily through monthly utility bills will spike to all-time highs, thanks to recent decisions rendered by the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSCW) on two popular “green pricing” programs.
The thousands of Madison Gas & Electric (MGE) customers participating in the utility’s Green Power Tomorrow program will see their premiums jump from 2.5 cents/kWh to 4 cents/kWh. That’s an increase of 60 percent. To translate this into dollars and cents, an average MGE customer consuming 500 kWh of electricity per month and subscribing at the 100 percent level will pay $90 more in 2013 for the same amount of renewable kWh sold this year.
Residential customers of Milwaukee-based We Energies (WE) will see an even larger percentage increase next year. In that utility’s rate case, the PSCW jacked up the premium paid by Energy for Tomorrow subscribers by nearly 73 percent, from 1.39 cents to 2.4 cents/kWh. Energy for Tomorrow has more than 20,000 subscribers.
Back in 1999, the year both programs were launched, MGE and WE customers paid an extra 3.33 cents and 2.04 cents/kWh, respectively, for the renewable energy they sponsored. Come January 1st, MGE and WE will likely share the dubious distinction of being the only utilities in the country offering renewable energy at a higher rate than they did in the 1990’s. So much for progress.
Adding insult to injury, renewable program subscribers will be subject to general rate increases approved by the PSCW this November. The utilities sought higher rates to recover the costs of retrofitting older coal-fired power stations with modern pollution controls. The fact that the renewable generators leveraged by program participants will never need pollution control retrofits is wholly disregarded in determining the size of the premium.
This is unquestionably a subsidy that flows from program participants to all ratepayers.
How did this happen?
Since 1999, renewable generation costs have tumbled, while productivity has improved.
A frustrated program subscriber might well ask: If base utility rates are going up, and the cost of renewable electricity is declining, why are premiums going up instead of down?
The short answer is that wholesale electricity prices have sagged in recent years, owing to a combination of unsustainably low natural gas prices, stagnant demand, and rapid expansion of wind power displacing higher-cost generation. In contrast, the price of renewable energy procured under long-term contracts held steady. When prices dropped in the wholesale market beginning in late 2008, the gap between system energy and renewable sources widened.
Though accurate, the above explanation is deeply unsatisfying, because the wholesale “market” is concerned about one thing only: the marginal cost of producing electricity into the grid. Nothing else matters, including the expenditures approved by the PSCW to reduce emissions from older generators. Even though retail customers wind up footing the bill for those upgrades, the wholesale market does not treat pollution control retrofits as marginal costs. Not one cent paid by ratepayers for these expenditures is reflected in the prices that renewable generators compete against.
The net effect of this disconnect is to artificially suppress the price of electricity from older and dirtier generators relative to newer and cleaner electricity producers. Real markets factor in the cost of upgrading and replacing capital equipment that manufacture the product bought by customers. What we have instead is an artificial contrivance that sacrifices long-term considerations like clean air, resource diversity and regulatory risk for the short-term reward of low prices.
Indeed, it would be difficult to design a more punitive market structure for renewables than the one we have at present.
‘Swimming up a waterfall’
Pricing renewable energy against a market operating in real time also undermines a valuable attribute of renewable energy, namely its inherent price stability. In this environment, the only way a customer can directly benefit from a fixed-price energy source like solar is to self-generate at his or her premises to reduce consumption of grid-supplied electricity.
In setting the premium size, the PSCW relied on pricing data at a time when the regional wholesale market was near its cyclical bottom. Electricity prices are now edging upward as forward prices of natural gas have rebounded from historic lows earlier this year. It’s a safe bet that wholesale electricity prices will continue to increase in 2013.
This sets up the very real possibility that WE and MGE will collect more revenue than is necessary to cover the cost spread between system energy and the renewable energy supplies servicing their customers. Unfortunately, the next time the base premium for each utility can be adjusted is January 1, 2015.
For at least a century now, fossil fuels have been the default resource option for most utilities. Against this institutional bias, switching to renewable energy is akin to swimming upstream. But given how far backward the PSCW bent to accommodate utilities’ continued reliance on coal and natural gas, quite a few renewable energy subscribers may balk at the prospect of swimming up a waterfall.
In fairness to MGE and WE, the price hikes approved by the PSCW went well beyond the incremental increases proposed by the two utilities. That’s because the agency relies solely on the wholesale “market” metric described above that filters out all societal benefits from the equation. To the agency, renewables are another source of electrons that deserve no special consideration. And, in reaching its decision, the PSCW disregarded the potential impact that abrupt price hikes might have on customer participation.
Programs outliving their usefulness?
A significant loss in subscribership would be a regrettable outcome if the programs were still viable vehicles for leveraging new sources of renewable energy. Sadly, that is no longer the case.
Earlier this decade, WE and MGE pulled the plug on a popular feature of their programs, specifically the special solar energy buyback rates that were funded with participant dollars. This innovation, which spurred the installation of hundreds of solar electric systems in their territories, succeeded in elevating MGE and WE’s stature while achieving the aims of their participating customers. However, when the utilities eliminated their solar incentives, they also removed the principal rationale for subscribing to their programs.
It seems quite clear that the current crop of voluntary renewable energy programs have outlived their usefulness. They are stagnating under a market structure that distorts and amplifies their true costs as well as a regulatory climate that greatly discounts their benefits to ratepayers. What were once dynamic vehicles for increasing supplies of renewable energy are now little more than feel-good marketing exercises running on autopilot. The value proposition to customers just isn’t there anymore.
There is nothing out there to prevent utilities from revitalizing their green pricing programs and making them useful once again. Such an undertaking, however, would require them to do something they haven’t done before: present an affirmative case for adding more renewables into their energy mix.
To do that effectively, utilities would need to recognize that the fossil energy path leads to a dead-end and that renewables ought to be the default resource option going forward. From that starting point, designing a program in which modest customer premiums actually result in additional supplies of renewable energy should be a simple and straightforward exercise.
It’s the very least a responsible utility should do to reduce the impact of generating electricity on the one planet we are privileged to call home.
Michael Vickerman is program and policy director of RENEW Wisconsin, a sustainable energy advocacy organization. RENEW Wisconsin is a member of RE-AMP, which also publishes Midwest Energy News.
Find the original article post here.
