.jpg)
Disregarding the pleas from RENEW and others for a veto, Doyle signed Senate Bill 273, as reported by Lisa Kaiser in the Shepard Expess, Milwaukee:
Were the state’s renewable energy goals weakened during the final days of the legislative session?
The answer depends on how you view a new bill, signed into law by Gov. Jim Doyle last week, which expands the definition of “renewable energy source” without increasing the amount of renewable energy that must be used by the state’s utilities.
“We went backwards, not forwards,” said state Rep. Spencer Black (D-Madison), a champion of clean energy. “If you don’t increase the percentage of renewable energy that must be used, and you include the new technologies, you decrease the amount of wind and solar to be used.”
A Last-Minute Amendment without Public Debate
The bill had been proposed last year with little fanfare. A public hearing was held last September to add some new technologies to the state’s renewable portfolio standard (RPS)—the state’s definition of what is a renewable energy source.
That designation is very important to a “clean energy” company, because it allows the company to sell its electricity to a utility and help that utility reach the 10% goal. Without that designation, the electricity isn’t as desirable to utilities that need to decrease their reliance on fossil fuels such as coal.
Last fall, the new technologies didn’t seem to raise too many alarms—for example, it included solar light pipes manufactured by Orion Energy Systems in Manitowoc.
Besides, the Clean Energy Jobs Act (CEJA), which would have raised the state’s renewable energy goals from 10% to 25% by 2025, was attracting far more attention than this rather innocuous bill.
But just hours before the vote on April 15, a controversial amendment was added to the bill by Sen. Majority Leader Russ Decker, Milwaukee Sen. Jeff Plale and Green Bay Sen. David Hansen to include even more technologies. Among them is “synthetic gas created by the plasma gasification of waste,” a cutting-edge technology that takes just about any kind of waste, heats it so intensely it turns into a gas, then uses that gas to create electricity that can be sold to utilities and put on the power grid.
Without public debate, the state Senate approved the amended bill 25-8 and the Assembly followed suit a week later on a voice vote with no record of who voted “aye” or “nay.”
Doyle signed it last week without revision, although he did note that it was “a difficult one to sign” since CEJA—with its higher standards—died in the state Legislature.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Friday, May 21, 2010
Alliant says no more coal plants ... for now and no nukes
From an article by Judy Newman in the Wisconsin State Journal:
Alliant Energy is giving up on the idea of building more coal-fired power plants "for the time being," Alliant chairman, president and chief executive Bill Harvey said Thursday.
In an interview after the Madison utility holding company's annual shareholders meeting, Harvey said Alliant subsidiary Wisconsin Power & Light will not ask for a new coal-fueled power plant to replace one proposed for Cassville that state regulators rejected in late 2008.
"I think it's politically ... too risky to think about building coal plants until climate legislation gets in place," Harvey said. "There's got to be substantial technological improvements before the country returns to building coal plants. That's certainly true for us," he said.
Thanks to adequate power available to buy on the electric transmission grid, Harvey said it will likely be two or three years before Alliant proposes building another natural-gas-fired power plant. That could happen sooner, though, if the economy recovers quickly or if climate change rules force the company to abandon its older coal-fired power plants sooner than expected.
As for nuclear power, Harvey said Alliant is not big enough to consider spending up to $10 billion to build a nuclear plant but it might buy part of a new one, if one is built. "We have to consider that. We have to consider all possibilities," he said.
Alliant Energy is giving up on the idea of building more coal-fired power plants "for the time being," Alliant chairman, president and chief executive Bill Harvey said Thursday.
In an interview after the Madison utility holding company's annual shareholders meeting, Harvey said Alliant subsidiary Wisconsin Power & Light will not ask for a new coal-fueled power plant to replace one proposed for Cassville that state regulators rejected in late 2008.
"I think it's politically ... too risky to think about building coal plants until climate legislation gets in place," Harvey said. "There's got to be substantial technological improvements before the country returns to building coal plants. That's certainly true for us," he said.
Thanks to adequate power available to buy on the electric transmission grid, Harvey said it will likely be two or three years before Alliant proposes building another natural-gas-fired power plant. That could happen sooner, though, if the economy recovers quickly or if climate change rules force the company to abandon its older coal-fired power plants sooner than expected.
As for nuclear power, Harvey said Alliant is not big enough to consider spending up to $10 billion to build a nuclear plant but it might buy part of a new one, if one is built. "We have to consider that. We have to consider all possibilities," he said.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Report: Coal use saps Wisconsin's economy
From an article by Larry Bivins in the Appleton Post-Crescent:
WASHINGTON — Wisconsin is the nation's fifth most coal-dependent state for generating electricity, according to a report released Tuesday.
Because the state has no coal supplies of its own, it spends hundreds of millions of dollars a year to import the fuel for power generation. Coal imports accounted for 68 percent of all power used in the state in 2008, research by the Union of Concerned Scientists found.
Wisconsin spent $853 million in 2008, or $152 per person, to import 25 million tons of coal from nine states, according to the report.
The state ranked 12th in the amount spent and in the amount of coal imported. Wyoming, which provided 40 percent of all U.S. coal in 2008, received $702 million of Wisconsin's money.
Coal-fired plants are the nation's biggest source of carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas that leading scientists say is causing global warming. Carbon dioxide emissions pose a danger to public health as well as the environment.
The Union of Concerned Scientists report, "Burning Coal, Burning Cash: Ranking the States that Import the Most Coal," covers 38 states that are net importers of domestic and foreign coal. Those states spent $27.7 billion on domestic and foreign coal imports in 2008, the latest year for which figures were available from the U.S. Energy Department.
Three states — Wyoming, West Virginia and Kentucky — produce most of the domestic coal burned in U.S. plants.
The report's authors conclude that all states would be better served if the money spent on coal were diverted to the development of renewable energy and energy-efficiency programs.
"The regions most dependent on imports, the Midwest and Southeast, have some of the best wind and bioenergy resources in the country," said Barbara Freese, a senior policy analyst for the UCS who helped write the report.
"Wisconsin has the technical potential to generate 4.2 times its electricity needs from renewable power," Freese said during a teleconference.
WASHINGTON — Wisconsin is the nation's fifth most coal-dependent state for generating electricity, according to a report released Tuesday.
Because the state has no coal supplies of its own, it spends hundreds of millions of dollars a year to import the fuel for power generation. Coal imports accounted for 68 percent of all power used in the state in 2008, research by the Union of Concerned Scientists found.
Wisconsin spent $853 million in 2008, or $152 per person, to import 25 million tons of coal from nine states, according to the report.
The state ranked 12th in the amount spent and in the amount of coal imported. Wyoming, which provided 40 percent of all U.S. coal in 2008, received $702 million of Wisconsin's money.
Coal-fired plants are the nation's biggest source of carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas that leading scientists say is causing global warming. Carbon dioxide emissions pose a danger to public health as well as the environment.
The Union of Concerned Scientists report, "Burning Coal, Burning Cash: Ranking the States that Import the Most Coal," covers 38 states that are net importers of domestic and foreign coal. Those states spent $27.7 billion on domestic and foreign coal imports in 2008, the latest year for which figures were available from the U.S. Energy Department.
Three states — Wyoming, West Virginia and Kentucky — produce most of the domestic coal burned in U.S. plants.
The report's authors conclude that all states would be better served if the money spent on coal were diverted to the development of renewable energy and energy-efficiency programs.
"The regions most dependent on imports, the Midwest and Southeast, have some of the best wind and bioenergy resources in the country," said Barbara Freese, a senior policy analyst for the UCS who helped write the report.
"Wisconsin has the technical potential to generate 4.2 times its electricity needs from renewable power," Freese said during a teleconference.
Friday, May 14, 2010
PSC sets hearings on state-side wind siting rules
From a news release issued by the Public Service Commission:
MADISON – The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSC) is seeking public comment on the proposed wind siting rules, issued today by the PSC. The proposed rules will ultimately result in uniform wind siting standards for local units of government in Wisconsin and ensure consistent local procedures for regulation of wind energy systems. . . .
2009 Wisconsin Act 40 (Act 40) requires the PSC to promulgate a variety of rules that specify the conditions a city, village, town, or county (political subdivision) may impose on the installation or use of a wind energy system. If a political subdivision chooses to regulate such systems, its ordinances may not be more restrictive than the PSC’s rules. The PSC will also consider the restrictions specified in these rules when determining whether to grant a certificate of public convenience and necessity for a wind energy system over 100 megawatts.
The PSC established docket 1-AC-231 to conduct the rulemaking under Act 40. Act 40 requires the PSC to conduct this rulemaking with the advice of the Wind Siting Council. The Wind Siting Council is an advisory body created by Act 40. The Wind Siting Council members have begun to provide input to Commission staff concerning these rules during a series of meetings in early 2010. The PSC will seek comments from the Wind Siting Council on the proposed draft rules issued by the Commission.
Any person may submit written comments on these proposed rules. Comments on the proposed rules will be accepted until July 7, 2010, at noon (July 6, 2010, at noon, if filed by fax). The comments are considered when staff is drafting the rules.
The PSC will hold hearings to take testimony from the public regarding the proposed rules in the Amnicon Falls Hearing Room at the Public Service Commission Building, 610 North Whitney Way, Madison, Wisconsin, on June 30, 2010. Act 40 requires that hearings regarding these rules also be held in Monroe County and a county other than Dane or Monroe, where developers have proposed wind energy systems. The PSC will also hold public hearings on these proposed rules at City Hall, Legislative Chambers, 160 West Macy Street in Fond du Lac on June 28, 2010, and Holiday Inn, 1017 East McCoy Boulevard in Tomah on June 29, 2010.
More information on the Wind Siting Council and the wind siting rulemaking pursuant to Act 40 can be found by visiting the Commission’s website and clicking on the Electronic Regulatory Filing System (ERF) at http://psc.wi.gov. Type case numbers 1-AC-231 in the boxes provided on the ERF system. To comment on the proposed rules, click on the Public Comments button on the PSC’s homepage and scroll down to select Wind Siting Rulemaking.
MADISON – The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSC) is seeking public comment on the proposed wind siting rules, issued today by the PSC. The proposed rules will ultimately result in uniform wind siting standards for local units of government in Wisconsin and ensure consistent local procedures for regulation of wind energy systems. . . .
2009 Wisconsin Act 40 (Act 40) requires the PSC to promulgate a variety of rules that specify the conditions a city, village, town, or county (political subdivision) may impose on the installation or use of a wind energy system. If a political subdivision chooses to regulate such systems, its ordinances may not be more restrictive than the PSC’s rules. The PSC will also consider the restrictions specified in these rules when determining whether to grant a certificate of public convenience and necessity for a wind energy system over 100 megawatts.
The PSC established docket 1-AC-231 to conduct the rulemaking under Act 40. Act 40 requires the PSC to conduct this rulemaking with the advice of the Wind Siting Council. The Wind Siting Council is an advisory body created by Act 40. The Wind Siting Council members have begun to provide input to Commission staff concerning these rules during a series of meetings in early 2010. The PSC will seek comments from the Wind Siting Council on the proposed draft rules issued by the Commission.
Any person may submit written comments on these proposed rules. Comments on the proposed rules will be accepted until July 7, 2010, at noon (July 6, 2010, at noon, if filed by fax). The comments are considered when staff is drafting the rules.
The PSC will hold hearings to take testimony from the public regarding the proposed rules in the Amnicon Falls Hearing Room at the Public Service Commission Building, 610 North Whitney Way, Madison, Wisconsin, on June 30, 2010. Act 40 requires that hearings regarding these rules also be held in Monroe County and a county other than Dane or Monroe, where developers have proposed wind energy systems. The PSC will also hold public hearings on these proposed rules at City Hall, Legislative Chambers, 160 West Macy Street in Fond du Lac on June 28, 2010, and Holiday Inn, 1017 East McCoy Boulevard in Tomah on June 29, 2010.
More information on the Wind Siting Council and the wind siting rulemaking pursuant to Act 40 can be found by visiting the Commission’s website and clicking on the Electronic Regulatory Filing System (ERF) at http://psc.wi.gov. Type case numbers 1-AC-231 in the boxes provided on the ERF system. To comment on the proposed rules, click on the Public Comments button on the PSC’s homepage and scroll down to select Wind Siting Rulemaking.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Bill McKibben leads list of Energy Fair keynote speakers, June 18-20
From the announcement of keynote speakers for the Energy Fair of the Midwest Renewable Energy Associaiton:
On Saturday, June 19, 2010, join us to hear an inspirational keynote address from noted environmentalist, activist and author, Bill McKibben. Bill is the founder of 350.org, an international climate campaign. He frequently writes about global warming, alternative energy, and the risks associated with human genetic engineering. Beginning in the summer of 2006, he led the organization of the largest demonstrations against global warming in American history.
Bill has written many books including The End of Nature and is a frequent contributor to various magazines including The New York Times, The Atlantic Monthly, Harper's, Orion Magazine, Mother Jones, The New York Review of Books, Granta, Rolling Stone, and Outside. He is also a board member and contributor to Grist Magazine. Bill has a new book out, Eaarth, that details how we can't continue the unsustainable consumer culture and gives us hope for a more sustainable future.
Visit Bill McKibben's website to learn more.
On Saturday, June 19, 2010, join us to hear an inspirational keynote address from noted environmentalist, activist and author, Bill McKibben. Bill is the founder of 350.org, an international climate campaign. He frequently writes about global warming, alternative energy, and the risks associated with human genetic engineering. Beginning in the summer of 2006, he led the organization of the largest demonstrations against global warming in American history.
Bill has written many books including The End of Nature and is a frequent contributor to various magazines including The New York Times, The Atlantic Monthly, Harper's, Orion Magazine, Mother Jones, The New York Review of Books, Granta, Rolling Stone, and Outside. He is also a board member and contributor to Grist Magazine. Bill has a new book out, Eaarth, that details how we can't continue the unsustainable consumer culture and gives us hope for a more sustainable future.
Visit Bill McKibben's website to learn more.
Monday, May 10, 2010
The cost of going green is going up in Madison
From an article by Tom Content in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
Madison Gas & Electric Co. is proposing to increase the surcharge paid by more than 11,000 utility customers who voluntarily pay a premium for green power.
Under green pricing programs, customers who want to buy renewable energy are charged extra. The power company then agrees to obtain that power by signing contracts for electricity from wind farms, landfill gas and other renewable electricity sources.
MG&E raised its surcharge in January and is proposing a bigger increase in 2011. For a typical residential customer using 550 kilowatt-hours of electricity a month, the surcharge rose from $5.50 a month to almost $7 this year, and about $11 a month in 2011.
In its application, Greg Bollom of MG&E said the cost of wind power isn't going up because "the fuel is free." But, he said, the gap between the cost of wind power and the cost of electricity from burning coal and natural gas has widened as the price of fossil fuel-derived power has dropped over the past year.
Concern about the environmental impact of fossil fuels has helped MG&E win national recognition for its green-pricing program.
MG&E ranked third in the country - behind only Palo Alto, Calif., and Portland, Ore. - in the percentage of customers that subscribe to green pricing, according to rankings published last week by the U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
But increasing the rate could have a chilling effect on the program, said Michael Vickerman, executive director of the advocacy group Renew Wisconsin.
"It's a 'heads-I-win-tails-you-lose' proposition that will wind up rewarding customers who drop out of the renewable energy program because coal is cheaper," Vickerman said. "It would be short-sighted to penalize renewable energy purchasers just because fossil fuel prices are in a temporary slump."
Madison Gas & Electric Co. is proposing to increase the surcharge paid by more than 11,000 utility customers who voluntarily pay a premium for green power.
Under green pricing programs, customers who want to buy renewable energy are charged extra. The power company then agrees to obtain that power by signing contracts for electricity from wind farms, landfill gas and other renewable electricity sources.
MG&E raised its surcharge in January and is proposing a bigger increase in 2011. For a typical residential customer using 550 kilowatt-hours of electricity a month, the surcharge rose from $5.50 a month to almost $7 this year, and about $11 a month in 2011.
In its application, Greg Bollom of MG&E said the cost of wind power isn't going up because "the fuel is free." But, he said, the gap between the cost of wind power and the cost of electricity from burning coal and natural gas has widened as the price of fossil fuel-derived power has dropped over the past year.
Concern about the environmental impact of fossil fuels has helped MG&E win national recognition for its green-pricing program.
MG&E ranked third in the country - behind only Palo Alto, Calif., and Portland, Ore. - in the percentage of customers that subscribe to green pricing, according to rankings published last week by the U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
But increasing the rate could have a chilling effect on the program, said Michael Vickerman, executive director of the advocacy group Renew Wisconsin.
"It's a 'heads-I-win-tails-you-lose' proposition that will wind up rewarding customers who drop out of the renewable energy program because coal is cheaper," Vickerman said. "It would be short-sighted to penalize renewable energy purchasers just because fossil fuel prices are in a temporary slump."
Friday, May 7, 2010
Impressions of the Wind Siting Council’s Tour of Wind Development
The Wind Siting Advisory Committee, created to advise the Public Service Commission on statewide wind siting standards, toured Blue Sky Green Field Wind Energy Center and Forward Wind Center on May 4, 2010, to gain first hand knowledge of turbine impacts.
Michael Vickerman, RENEW Wisconsin's executive director, prepared the following commentary on his impressions of the tour:
Impressions of the Wind Siting Council’s Tour of Wind Development in Fond du Lac County
Stop 1 – Home of Larry Wunsch, council member, pilot, and wind project opponent
A member of the Wind Siting Council and a critic of windpower, Larry lives on a 60-acre parcel located on the northern edge of the Forward project along Hwy F. On his 60 acres you’ll find a six-year-old 2,200 square-foot house, a hangar, a airplane, an airstrip, and 50 acres of rentable ag land, all zoned agricultural. The property is for sale; the asking price is $600,000. You can take a digital tour of his property by visiting http://www.fdlairstrip.com. Observe that not a single turbine shows up in any of the images on his web site. As you will appreciate later on in this document, editing out the wind turbines was not an easy feat to pull off.
Fourteen of the 15 council members were present at Larry Wunsch’s house. Also gathering there were PSC staff, a film crew from WI Public Television, Bill Rakocy’s partners at Emerging Energies (Tim Osterberg and Jay Mundinger) a smattering of local wind critics (Gerry Meyer and Curt Kindschuh), two WINDCOWS representatives from Manitowoc County (Dave and Lynn Korinek), Lynda Barry from Rock County, furiously taking notes, and a few others whom I didn’t recognize.
I came a few minutes late, and missed some of Larry’s opening remarks. From what I gleaned from others, Larry mentioned that he poured much if not all of his personal savings into acquiring this property some 11 years ago. Between the appearance of his property and the tidbits of information he provided yesterday, I would characterize Larry’s parcel as investment property on which he built his dream house, which is set back about 100 yards from the road. The property tax levy on his 60-acre parcel is quite modest -- $5,400 per year. At some point in the future, his plan was to subdivide the ag land into residential properties.
The wind was blowing from the west-southwest. My educated guess is that the winds were clocking in about 10 – 14 miles/hour.
The closest turbine to Larry’s house is located practically due west at a distance of 1,100 feet. I honestly could not hear the wind turbine from where I stood, about 50 feet east of the house. I was surprised by this, because I had stopped at the Blue Sky Green Field operations center on the way to Larry’s house, and there I could clearly hear the Vestas V-82 turbine that is 1,100 feet away from the building entrance.
There was no shadow flicker to experience, due to the generally cloudy conditions at Forward as well as the time of day.
There was no missing the visual impact of the Forward project looking south from where we gathered, which was in front of Larry’s hangar. There were easily 50 turbines viewable from that vantage point. Moreover, off in the eastern horizon, the Cedar Ridge turbines were plainly visible, although their visual impact was slight compared to the panorama of Forward turbines from east to west. Since he owned the property before the wind turbines were constructed, the change in his south-facing viewshed must have been dramatic, to say the least.
No one had any difficulty hearing Larry or any other speaker during the tour stop. Maybe others were able to perceive sound coming from the turbines, but I certainly wasn’t. We were able to make out a plethora of other sounds while we were there, including a very loud plane flying overhead, occasional bird chatter, random mooing of cows and, at one point, a helicopter buzzing over the turbines. The bucolic sounds of the countryside were in no way disturbed or distorted by whooshing noise. . . .
Stop 2 – Blue Sky Green Field Operations Center
On the way to the operations center, the clouds broke up and the sun shone through. We assembled at the operations center, where We Energies’ Andy Hesselbach delivered a brief presentation on WE’s generation profile and the construction of the Blue Sky Green Field in 2007-2008, and its performance since. The turbines were achieving availability ratings of 99% or better. According to Andy, wind farm production was tracking close to preconstruction estimates, and that April had been a good month for wind. (An aside: it was a hell of a good month for solar too. . . .)
The overall impression conveyed by the We Energies-Vestas team is that Blue Sky Green Field is a well-managed project and that We Energies is a responsible project owner, effectively balancing the objective of maximizing facility output with the obligation to be a good neighbor to area residents.
After the presentations were concluded, the group walked to the turbine closest to the operations center. As we approached the turbine we spotted two red-tailed hawks wheeling above the turbine, looking not the least bit alarmed. The wind started to pick up then.
The turbine door was opened and a few Council members and PSC staff stepped inside. Others gathered about 200 feet from the turbine to talk. Even though everyone was quite conscious of the whooshing blades (and an audible chirping sound with each revolution), we were able to converse with each other without having to raise our voices or cup our ears. Not far away, one of the Council members, a wind opponent, was listening to messages on his mobile. No one, including the opponents, seemed troubled by our proximity to the turbine. Given how quick they are to misrepresent the contents of the Vestas safety manual, they seemed not at all worried about what harm might befall them being only 200 feet from a spinning industrial monster. The two WINDCOWS representatives were tagging along and they didn’t seem the least bit fazed either.
Michael Vickerman, RENEW Wisconsin's executive director, prepared the following commentary on his impressions of the tour:
Impressions of the Wind Siting Council’s Tour of Wind Development in Fond du Lac County
Stop 1 – Home of Larry Wunsch, council member, pilot, and wind project opponent
A member of the Wind Siting Council and a critic of windpower, Larry lives on a 60-acre parcel located on the northern edge of the Forward project along Hwy F. On his 60 acres you’ll find a six-year-old 2,200 square-foot house, a hangar, a airplane, an airstrip, and 50 acres of rentable ag land, all zoned agricultural. The property is for sale; the asking price is $600,000. You can take a digital tour of his property by visiting http://www.fdlairstrip.com. Observe that not a single turbine shows up in any of the images on his web site. As you will appreciate later on in this document, editing out the wind turbines was not an easy feat to pull off.
Fourteen of the 15 council members were present at Larry Wunsch’s house. Also gathering there were PSC staff, a film crew from WI Public Television, Bill Rakocy’s partners at Emerging Energies (Tim Osterberg and Jay Mundinger) a smattering of local wind critics (Gerry Meyer and Curt Kindschuh), two WINDCOWS representatives from Manitowoc County (Dave and Lynn Korinek), Lynda Barry from Rock County, furiously taking notes, and a few others whom I didn’t recognize.
I came a few minutes late, and missed some of Larry’s opening remarks. From what I gleaned from others, Larry mentioned that he poured much if not all of his personal savings into acquiring this property some 11 years ago. Between the appearance of his property and the tidbits of information he provided yesterday, I would characterize Larry’s parcel as investment property on which he built his dream house, which is set back about 100 yards from the road. The property tax levy on his 60-acre parcel is quite modest -- $5,400 per year. At some point in the future, his plan was to subdivide the ag land into residential properties.
The wind was blowing from the west-southwest. My educated guess is that the winds were clocking in about 10 – 14 miles/hour.
The closest turbine to Larry’s house is located practically due west at a distance of 1,100 feet. I honestly could not hear the wind turbine from where I stood, about 50 feet east of the house. I was surprised by this, because I had stopped at the Blue Sky Green Field operations center on the way to Larry’s house, and there I could clearly hear the Vestas V-82 turbine that is 1,100 feet away from the building entrance.
There was no shadow flicker to experience, due to the generally cloudy conditions at Forward as well as the time of day.
There was no missing the visual impact of the Forward project looking south from where we gathered, which was in front of Larry’s hangar. There were easily 50 turbines viewable from that vantage point. Moreover, off in the eastern horizon, the Cedar Ridge turbines were plainly visible, although their visual impact was slight compared to the panorama of Forward turbines from east to west. Since he owned the property before the wind turbines were constructed, the change in his south-facing viewshed must have been dramatic, to say the least. No one had any difficulty hearing Larry or any other speaker during the tour stop. Maybe others were able to perceive sound coming from the turbines, but I certainly wasn’t. We were able to make out a plethora of other sounds while we were there, including a very loud plane flying overhead, occasional bird chatter, random mooing of cows and, at one point, a helicopter buzzing over the turbines. The bucolic sounds of the countryside were in no way disturbed or distorted by whooshing noise. . . .
Stop 2 – Blue Sky Green Field Operations Center
On the way to the operations center, the clouds broke up and the sun shone through. We assembled at the operations center, where We Energies’ Andy Hesselbach delivered a brief presentation on WE’s generation profile and the construction of the Blue Sky Green Field in 2007-2008, and its performance since. The turbines were achieving availability ratings of 99% or better. According to Andy, wind farm production was tracking close to preconstruction estimates, and that April had been a good month for wind. (An aside: it was a hell of a good month for solar too. . . .)
The overall impression conveyed by the We Energies-Vestas team is that Blue Sky Green Field is a well-managed project and that We Energies is a responsible project owner, effectively balancing the objective of maximizing facility output with the obligation to be a good neighbor to area residents.
After the presentations were concluded, the group walked to the turbine closest to the operations center. As we approached the turbine we spotted two red-tailed hawks wheeling above the turbine, looking not the least bit alarmed. The wind started to pick up then.
The turbine door was opened and a few Council members and PSC staff stepped inside. Others gathered about 200 feet from the turbine to talk. Even though everyone was quite conscious of the whooshing blades (and an audible chirping sound with each revolution), we were able to converse with each other without having to raise our voices or cup our ears. Not far away, one of the Council members, a wind opponent, was listening to messages on his mobile. No one, including the opponents, seemed troubled by our proximity to the turbine. Given how quick they are to misrepresent the contents of the Vestas safety manual, they seemed not at all worried about what harm might befall them being only 200 feet from a spinning industrial monster. The two WINDCOWS representatives were tagging along and they didn’t seem the least bit fazed either.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
A Cruel Month for Renewable Energy
A commentary
by Michael Vickerman, RENEW Wisconsin
May 4, 2010
Renewable energy businesses and activists entered the month of April with high hopes of seeing the State Legislature pass the Clean Energy Jobs Act (CEJA), a comprehensive bill designed to propel Wisconsin toward energy independence, along the way creating thousands of new jobs and strengthening the sustainable energy marketplace. This comprehensive bill would have raised the renewable energy content of electricity sold in Wisconsin, while stepping up ratepayer support for smaller-scale renewable energy installations throughout the state.
Unfortunately, on April 22, the State Senate adjourned for the year without taking action on the Clean Energy Jobs Act bill, effectively killing the measure and leaving hundreds of businesses and individuals who campaigned for the bill empty-handed.
If life imitates poetry, then the line that opens T.S. Eliot’s “The Waste Land—“April is the cruelest month”—aptly encapsulates the evolution of a campaign that overcame many obstacles in the final weeks only to be undermined by the unwillingness of Senate leaders to schedule a vote on the bill. The sense of anticipation that began the month was swept away by a combination of personal feuds, extreme partisanship, and increasingly polarized public attitudes toward climate change. That the bill’s demise coincided with the 40th anniversary of Earth Day was seen by supporters as an especially cruel twist of fate.
It certainly didn’t help matters that the some of the state’s most politically entrenched constituencies banded together to fight CEJA at every stage of the process. Among the hard-core opponents were Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, the Paper Council and the Farm Bureau. Their vociferous opposition scuttled bipartisanship, eliminating the possibility that a Republican legislator would vote for the bill.
Working hand-in-glove with vitriolic right-wing radio talk show hosts, the opposition supplied their grassroots faithful with a smorgasbord of exaggerated claims, hyperbole, outright fantasy, and pseudoscience. Though the analysis purporting to document the opposition’s assertions set a new low in academic rigor, it succeeded in its aim, which was to plant the seeds of fear among certain legislators about the ultimate cost of this legislation before the bill was even introduced.
Working just as vigorously for the Clean Energy Jobs Act, a broad spectrum of interests answered the requests for help. Whether they were one-person solar installation businesses or Fortune 500 corporations like Milwaukee-based Johnson Controls, CEJA supporters wrote letters, made phone calls, and corralled their legislators at the Capitol on several days during March and April.
In dozens of face-to-face meetings with their representatives, CEJA supporters made the case for this bill by bringing out their own experiences as business owners, farmers, educators, builders, and skilled tradesmen. They presented a local and highly personal angle to the clean energy policy debate that many legislators had not appreciated before. Their passion and energy were instrumental in giving this bill a fighting chance for passage at the end of the session. Unfortunately, the campaign could not overcome the pique of the Senate Democrats.
One legislator who kept pushing this ambitious bill up the legislative hill until the very last day was Assembly representative Spencer Black, who was one of the four principal authors of the measure. CEJA supporters are indebted to Rep. Black for his vigorous leadership and his determined efforts to round up support among his compatriots for passing this bill.
Two rays of sunlight did manage to pierce through the heavy clouds at the close of April, prompted by the dedication of the two largest wind turbines owned by Wisconsin schools. In each case, the school erected a 100-kilowatt Northwind turbine manufactured by Vermont-based Northern Power Systems. One serves Wausau East High School while the other feeds power to the Madison Area Technical College’s Fort Atkinson branch. The turbines will offset a significant fraction of the electricity consumed at each school.
Located well within the city limits of Wausau and Fort Atkinson, these 155-foot-tall wind generators eloquently testify to the breadth and depth of public support for renewable energy across Wisconsin. Next January, the Legislature will witness the return of clean energy supporters with similar legislation for strengthening Wisconsin’s renewable energy marketplace. In the meantime, we will be working hard to achieve a very different outcome.
Michael Vickerman is the executive director of RENEW Wisconsin, a sustainable energy advocacy organization headquartered in Madison. For more information on Wisconsin renewable energy policy, visit RENEW’s web site at: www.renewwisconsin.org.
by Michael Vickerman, RENEW Wisconsin
May 4, 2010
Renewable energy businesses and activists entered the month of April with high hopes of seeing the State Legislature pass the Clean Energy Jobs Act (CEJA), a comprehensive bill designed to propel Wisconsin toward energy independence, along the way creating thousands of new jobs and strengthening the sustainable energy marketplace. This comprehensive bill would have raised the renewable energy content of electricity sold in Wisconsin, while stepping up ratepayer support for smaller-scale renewable energy installations throughout the state.
Unfortunately, on April 22, the State Senate adjourned for the year without taking action on the Clean Energy Jobs Act bill, effectively killing the measure and leaving hundreds of businesses and individuals who campaigned for the bill empty-handed.
If life imitates poetry, then the line that opens T.S. Eliot’s “The Waste Land—“April is the cruelest month”—aptly encapsulates the evolution of a campaign that overcame many obstacles in the final weeks only to be undermined by the unwillingness of Senate leaders to schedule a vote on the bill. The sense of anticipation that began the month was swept away by a combination of personal feuds, extreme partisanship, and increasingly polarized public attitudes toward climate change. That the bill’s demise coincided with the 40th anniversary of Earth Day was seen by supporters as an especially cruel twist of fate.
It certainly didn’t help matters that the some of the state’s most politically entrenched constituencies banded together to fight CEJA at every stage of the process. Among the hard-core opponents were Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, the Paper Council and the Farm Bureau. Their vociferous opposition scuttled bipartisanship, eliminating the possibility that a Republican legislator would vote for the bill.
Working hand-in-glove with vitriolic right-wing radio talk show hosts, the opposition supplied their grassroots faithful with a smorgasbord of exaggerated claims, hyperbole, outright fantasy, and pseudoscience. Though the analysis purporting to document the opposition’s assertions set a new low in academic rigor, it succeeded in its aim, which was to plant the seeds of fear among certain legislators about the ultimate cost of this legislation before the bill was even introduced.
Working just as vigorously for the Clean Energy Jobs Act, a broad spectrum of interests answered the requests for help. Whether they were one-person solar installation businesses or Fortune 500 corporations like Milwaukee-based Johnson Controls, CEJA supporters wrote letters, made phone calls, and corralled their legislators at the Capitol on several days during March and April.
In dozens of face-to-face meetings with their representatives, CEJA supporters made the case for this bill by bringing out their own experiences as business owners, farmers, educators, builders, and skilled tradesmen. They presented a local and highly personal angle to the clean energy policy debate that many legislators had not appreciated before. Their passion and energy were instrumental in giving this bill a fighting chance for passage at the end of the session. Unfortunately, the campaign could not overcome the pique of the Senate Democrats.
One legislator who kept pushing this ambitious bill up the legislative hill until the very last day was Assembly representative Spencer Black, who was one of the four principal authors of the measure. CEJA supporters are indebted to Rep. Black for his vigorous leadership and his determined efforts to round up support among his compatriots for passing this bill.
Two rays of sunlight did manage to pierce through the heavy clouds at the close of April, prompted by the dedication of the two largest wind turbines owned by Wisconsin schools. In each case, the school erected a 100-kilowatt Northwind turbine manufactured by Vermont-based Northern Power Systems. One serves Wausau East High School while the other feeds power to the Madison Area Technical College’s Fort Atkinson branch. The turbines will offset a significant fraction of the electricity consumed at each school.
Located well within the city limits of Wausau and Fort Atkinson, these 155-foot-tall wind generators eloquently testify to the breadth and depth of public support for renewable energy across Wisconsin. Next January, the Legislature will witness the return of clean energy supporters with similar legislation for strengthening Wisconsin’s renewable energy marketplace. In the meantime, we will be working hard to achieve a very different outcome.
END
Michael Vickerman is the executive director of RENEW Wisconsin, a sustainable energy advocacy organization headquartered in Madison. For more information on Wisconsin renewable energy policy, visit RENEW’s web site at: www.renewwisconsin.org.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
How to get consumers to care about smart grid?
From an article by Michael Kanellos on GreenTechGrid.com:
. . . But do consumers care about time-of-use? Has it changed their behavior yet? "No, not really," [said Karen France, Toronto Hydro Electric System LTD].
Alliant Energy Corporation -- which has put 455,000 electric smart meters and 177 gas meters in Wisconsin and 526,000 electric meters and 234,000 gas meters in Minnesota and Iowa -- has taken a different tack. It isn't even describing consumer benefits yet, said senior manager of energy delivery technology Richard Potter. Instead, it has focused its public communications on how smart meters will improve operational efficiency. 98 percent of the Wisconsin meters can already handle automated billing.
Consumer outreach will begin soon -- and it can't hurt. Wisconsin already has a time-of-use program, but only around 1 percent of customers take advantage of it, Potter said. If anything, the smart meters should make it more palatable.
Potter had a few other interesting tidbits to offer, too. The company employs direct RF meters from Sensus because three years ago, it was the only company producing meters that could handle both gas and electric data. Unlike meters based on mesh networking, direct RF meters generally connect directly to a utility-owned base station. At most, the meters will bounce through a single adjacent meters. The company had earlier experimented with mesh networks -- in which data from one meter can hop through several meters before getting to the utility -- and the results weren't perfect.
Alliant has also had a few hitches with its relationship with Google. Google will install PowerMeter into consumers' homes in Wisconsin that will give consumers access to their power consumption data. Google, as a result, will have access to Alliant's data. However, they have yet to agree to reciprocate and give their data about consumer experience back to Alliant. (Ed note: Suggested motto: We're Not Evil. We Can't Vouch for You.)
. . . But do consumers care about time-of-use? Has it changed their behavior yet? "No, not really," [said Karen France, Toronto Hydro Electric System LTD].
Alliant Energy Corporation -- which has put 455,000 electric smart meters and 177 gas meters in Wisconsin and 526,000 electric meters and 234,000 gas meters in Minnesota and Iowa -- has taken a different tack. It isn't even describing consumer benefits yet, said senior manager of energy delivery technology Richard Potter. Instead, it has focused its public communications on how smart meters will improve operational efficiency. 98 percent of the Wisconsin meters can already handle automated billing.
Consumer outreach will begin soon -- and it can't hurt. Wisconsin already has a time-of-use program, but only around 1 percent of customers take advantage of it, Potter said. If anything, the smart meters should make it more palatable.
Potter had a few other interesting tidbits to offer, too. The company employs direct RF meters from Sensus because three years ago, it was the only company producing meters that could handle both gas and electric data. Unlike meters based on mesh networking, direct RF meters generally connect directly to a utility-owned base station. At most, the meters will bounce through a single adjacent meters. The company had earlier experimented with mesh networks -- in which data from one meter can hop through several meters before getting to the utility -- and the results weren't perfect.
Alliant has also had a few hitches with its relationship with Google. Google will install PowerMeter into consumers' homes in Wisconsin that will give consumers access to their power consumption data. Google, as a result, will have access to Alliant's data. However, they have yet to agree to reciprocate and give their data about consumer experience back to Alliant. (Ed note: Suggested motto: We're Not Evil. We Can't Vouch for You.)
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Alliant Energy posts lower net income
From an article by Judy Newman in the Wisconsin State Journal:
Non-cash tax impacts contributed to lower earnings for Alliant Energy during the first three months of 2010, the Madison utility holding company said Tuesday.
Alliant Energy reported net income of $43.4 million, or 39 cents a share, on revenue of $891.3 million for the first quarter of 2010, down from net income of $72.6 million, or 66 cents a share, on revenue of $949.9 million for the 2009 first quarter.
Analysts had expected earnings of 51 cents a share, according to Thomson Reuters.
Higher rates helped boost net income by $5.7 million for Wisconsin Power & Light, the Madison utility subsidiary, the company said. But Iowa subsidiary, Interstate Power & Light, had a $32 million drop in net income, mainly due to a tax change enacted by the Wisconsin Legislature in 2009 that benefited IPL last year.
Excluding one-time tax impacts, utility earnings were up 15 cents a share over the 2009 first quarter, said Bill Harvey, Alliant chairman, president and chief executive officer.
Non-cash tax impacts contributed to lower earnings for Alliant Energy during the first three months of 2010, the Madison utility holding company said Tuesday.
Alliant Energy reported net income of $43.4 million, or 39 cents a share, on revenue of $891.3 million for the first quarter of 2010, down from net income of $72.6 million, or 66 cents a share, on revenue of $949.9 million for the 2009 first quarter.
Analysts had expected earnings of 51 cents a share, according to Thomson Reuters.
Higher rates helped boost net income by $5.7 million for Wisconsin Power & Light, the Madison utility subsidiary, the company said. But Iowa subsidiary, Interstate Power & Light, had a $32 million drop in net income, mainly due to a tax change enacted by the Wisconsin Legislature in 2009 that benefited IPL last year.
Excluding one-time tax impacts, utility earnings were up 15 cents a share over the 2009 first quarter, said Bill Harvey, Alliant chairman, president and chief executive officer.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Two utility rate hikes possible for WPL customers
From an article by Judy Newman in the Wisconsin State Journal:
Wisconsin Power & Light filed requests with the state Public Service Commission on Friday to raise its electricity rates, sooner and later.
WPL, the local utility subsidiary of Madison-based Alliant Energy, wants to collect another $8.8 million from customers to help cover increased costs for fuel. The utility said fuel costs this year are higher than anticipated. It is seeking a fuel-only hike of just under 1 percent that would add about 53 cents a month onto the bills of the average residential customer, starting immediately.
WPL also is asking for a 3.6 percent increase in electric rates for 2011 to help pay for the construction and operation of WPL's Bent Tree Wind Farm. The 122-turbine installation in Minnesota could produce as much as 200 megawatts of electricity, potentially enough to power 50,000 homes under peak conditions. The Bent Tree project, to be owned and operated by WPL, will cost more than $450 million. The higher base rate would add about $3.11 a month to the average residential customer's bills next year.
If both proposed increases go through, the cost of electricity for an average residential WPL ratepayer would climb to $79.34 a month in 2011.
Wisconsin Power & Light filed requests with the state Public Service Commission on Friday to raise its electricity rates, sooner and later.
WPL, the local utility subsidiary of Madison-based Alliant Energy, wants to collect another $8.8 million from customers to help cover increased costs for fuel. The utility said fuel costs this year are higher than anticipated. It is seeking a fuel-only hike of just under 1 percent that would add about 53 cents a month onto the bills of the average residential customer, starting immediately.
WPL also is asking for a 3.6 percent increase in electric rates for 2011 to help pay for the construction and operation of WPL's Bent Tree Wind Farm. The 122-turbine installation in Minnesota could produce as much as 200 megawatts of electricity, potentially enough to power 50,000 homes under peak conditions. The Bent Tree project, to be owned and operated by WPL, will cost more than $450 million. The higher base rate would add about $3.11 a month to the average residential customer's bills next year.
If both proposed increases go through, the cost of electricity for an average residential WPL ratepayer would climb to $79.34 a month in 2011.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)