Win-win at Oak Creek

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.

RENEW submits Cassville testimony on available wind & unavailable biomass

From the testmiony submitted by Michael Vickerman on behalf of RENEW Wisconsin:

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. . . .

Wall Street's jitters drove deal on We Energies' Oak Creek plant

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.

WPPI announces grant recipients for energy efficiency bidding

From a media release issued by WPPI:

WPPI recently awarded $185,000 in grants for energy efficiency projects to various business and municipal customers served by WPPI member utilities.

WPPI’s RFP for Energy Efficiency is aimed at making electric energy saving projects a worthwhile business investment for large power customers. Large commercial and industrial customers of WPPI’s member communities are invited to submit competitive proposals for cost-effective, energy saving upgrades to equipment and systems within their current facilities.

Grant incentives were awarded to four companies in the fourth round of RFP for Energy Efficiency bidding:

* Community Memorial Hospital, a customer of Oconto Falls Municipal Utilities, was awarded $35,000 for an energy-saving upgrade to the central chiller plant to provide air conditioning and dehumidification to the hospital’s Primary Care Clinic.

* Village of Little Chute, a customer of Kaukauna Utilities, will receive $50,960 to offset the costs of upgrading the supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system on one of its wells and to install variable speed drives on two other wells. A SCADA system collects data from various sensors at a factory or plant and sends the data to a central computer which manages and controls the data. Adding a variable speed drive to a motor-driven system can offer energy savings in a system in which the loads vary during use.

* Madison-Kipp Corporation, a customer of Sun Prairie Water & Light, will receive $72,000 to replace two existing air compressors with a new high efficiency variable speed drive air compressor to regulate air pressure with reduced cost.

* Johnsonville Sausage, a customer of Plymouth Utilities, was awarded $27,000 to replace two bi-parting freezer doors with two air conditioned air curtain systems. The new air curtain system will create a vestibule to condition the air. These systems save energy, reduce moisture and help maintain the temperature of high usage freezer doorways. . . .

WPPI anticipates awarding up to $500,000 in additional RFP for Energy Efficiency grants this year, with $250,000 in funding available for each bidding cycle. The most recent round of bidding was completed in July, and incentive grants will be awarded in August. A subsequent round of bidding will close on Nov. 7, with awards granted in December.

Oak Creek plant settlement includes renewable energy commitment

From a story posted on the Web site of The Business Journal of Milwaukee:

The three owners of the Elm Road Generating Station in Oak Creek will pay $105 million over a 25-year period for Lake Michigan protection projects to end a three- year legal battle over the water intake structure at the power plant, Clean Wisconsin and the Sierra Club said Wednesday.

Clean Wisconsin and the Sierra Club filed suit after the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources issued a permit allowing the use of a once-through cooling system at the coal-fired power plant. The organizations claimed that once-through cooling did not represent the best available technology for cooling the plant and thus should not be permitted.

Under the settlement, the three utilities that own the generating station -- We Energies of Milwaukee, Madison Gas & Electric of Madison and Wisconsin Public Power Inc. of Sun Prairie -- agreed to the following:

- Funding $4 million per year from 2010 through 2035 for projects to address water quality issues in Lake Michigan such as invasive species, polluted runoff, toxic loadings, and habitat destruction;

- Purchase or construct 15 megawatts of solar generation by Jan. 1, 2015; and

- Support legislative efforts to establish a renewable energy portfolio standard of 10 percent by 2013 and 25 percent by 2025.

We Energies will also retire two coal-fired units in Presque Isle, Michigan and ask the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin for approval to construct 50 megawatts of 100 percent biomass-fueled power in Wisconsin.

In a media release, Mark Redsten, Exeuctive Director, of Clean Wisconsin said:

"We're happy to have reached an agreement that has significant benefits for both the lake and the fight against global warming. These environmental protections help ensure Lake Michigan is a healthy natural resource for generations to come."

From a separate release issed by the Sierra Club:

“In the long run, this agreement will result in dramatic improvements to the overall health of Lake Michigan and will contribute to the development of renewable energy sources such as solar and biomass,” said Jennifer Feyerherm, Wisconsin Clean Energy Campaign Director.

“It will help us address two of the most critical issues of our time—climate change and protection of one of the world’s greatest freshwater natural resources.”

Rapids mill recognized for energy reduction

An article from the Wisconsin Rapids Tribune:

NewPage’s converting facility in Wisconsin Rapids has received national recognition for its new high-efficiency, high intensity fluorescent lighting system, the company announced today.

Orion Energy Systems awarded the Miamisburg, Ohio-based papermaker with its Environmental Stewardship Award — an annual recognition presented to companies that achieve significant environmental benefits through the use of their products and systems.

The result of collaboration between the two companies, the new system will reduced energy usage by almost 2.3 million kilowatt-hours a year; the average household uses about 10,000 kilowatt-hours a year, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.

NewPage officials said the change will not only help the company become more energy efficient and cost effective but also contribute to a better work environment, calling the change a “win-win-win situation.”

UW-Stout is No. 1 in energy efficiency in UW System

From a media release issued by the UW-Stout:

According to the “Energy Use in State-Owned Facilities” report released annually through Wisconsin’s Department of Administration, the University of Wisconsin-Stout is the most energy efficient campus of all 13 four-year campuses in the UW System. The energy consumption of all UW campuses is monitored through monthly utility bills and fuel consumption reports and converted to units of energy, or BTUs, per square foot, per year. This calculation makes campuses of different sizes comparable.

In the last released report, UW-Stout was 30 percent more efficient than the UW system average and 12 percent more efficient than the runner up, UW-River Falls. UW-Stout has been the leader in energy efficiency for more than the past decade.

These statistics may surprise some who are looking for headline grabbing energy projects. However, like the three R’s in waste minimization (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle), a sustainable energy regime begins with using less.

There is something far from glamorous behind UW-Stout’s energy efficient status—an extraordinary commitment to maintenance and incremental energy reduction measures.

For instance, each year the university’s chiller condenser and evaporator tubes are cleaned and all exterior door weather stripping is checked annually and replaced if necessary. These measures, and much more, are basic maintenance standards for all institutions, but whether or not they are followed to a “T” depends on leadership and commitment by facilities management.

UW-Stout’s Director of Physical Plant Ted Hendzel attributes much of the energy conservation results to the maintenance workers responsible for fine tuning and operating the equipment and facilities.