Rising Diesel Prices Fuel Higher Electric Rates

For immediate release
April 15, 2011

More information
RENEW Wisconsin
Michael Vickerman
608.255.4044
mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org

We Energies Customers Will Pay the Higher Cost of Hauling Coal

We Energies’ electricity customers can look forward to coughing up an additional $25 million in 2011 due to the Public Service Commission’s approval yesterday [April14] of a rate increase to cover the escalating cost of transporting coal to Wisconsin power plants.

Milwaukee-based We Energies, Wisconsin’s largest electric utility, imports coal from such distant locations as Wyoming and Pennsylvania to generate electricity. Transportation now accounts for two-thirds of the delivered cost of coal to Wisconsin.

Diesel fuel costs have jumped to approximately $4.00 a gallon this year, propelled by political unrest in the Middle East, declining petroleum output from Mexico, a weakening dollar, and other factors. We Energies’ request predated the ongoing civil war in Libya.

“While we cannot control any of those price drivers, we can more effectively cushion their effects by diversifying our energy generation mix with locally produced wind, solar, small hydro, and biogas electricity,” said Michael Vickerman, executive director of RENEW Wisconsin, a statewide organization advocating for public policies and private initiatives that advance renewable energy.

“The coal mines aren’t getting any closer to Wisconsin. Therefore we have to be serious about reducing our dependence on fossil fuels that are tied to the global oil supply picture. Now is not the time to skimp on investments in conservation and renewable energy that will help stabilize the utility bills of businesses and residents,” Vickerman said.

“Do we have the will to pursue energy policies that take us off of the fossil fuel price escalator? Doing nothing will bake these rate increases into our future without any corresponding boost to Wisconsin’s job market and sustainable energy economy.”

--END--

Wisconsin poised to be energy exporter

From an article by Matt Hrody on NewsBuzz:

After the brownouts of the late 1990s, electric utilities in Wisconsin got serious about adding generating capacity. Although the new power plants that followed, including ones in the Milwaukee area, ultimately increased rates for customers, they could become a boon for them as the economy rebounds, according to the state’s new Strategic Energy Assessment. Wisconsin could become a leading exporter of electricity in the Midwest with profits helping to keep a lid on rates at home.

The Assessment, released earlier this week, projects that the state’s generating capacity will exceed demand in the state by 20 percent until 2015. The “reserve margin,” as it’s called, will peak this year at 26 percent. To the state Public Service Commission, which regulates electric utilities in the state and produced the report, the margin may be too large. “There is reason for concern,” it says, “when reserve margins are in excess of 20 percent.”

According to Charlie Higley, executive director of the state Citizens’ Utility Board, the costs for running and maintaining unneeded power plants, particularly older, less efficient ones that burn coal, are passed onto consumers.

The Commission suggests that the state’s excess capacity could become an opportunity. While Wisconsin has undergone a large build-up of power plants, other states haven’t. “Other states may not be as well-positioned with capacity in their near futures,” the report says, “and Wisconsin utilities may increasingly serve as energy exporters.”

Profits from those exports – wholesale power sales to municipalities or other customers throughout the Midwest – must be used to pay for rising fuel costs, according to Higley. Fuel costs are a major driver of rate increases, which could be offset by an increase in wholesale profits.

The Commission agrees. “While this market is evolving, the opportunity exists for excess generation sales to benefit ratepayers,” the report says.

“Any profit is returned to ratepayers, and that’s fine with us,” says Higley, but neither he nor the Commission yet knows how large the returns could be.

State electricity needs won't rise as much as thought, according to report

From an article by Judy Newman in the Wisconsin State Journal:

Projections for the rise in state electricity needs have dropped by nearly two-thirds, according to a report approved by state regulators Thursday.

The Public Service Commission's Strategic Energy Assessment, looking at Wisconsin's energy needs through 2016, shows state utilities now expect the need for electricity at times of highest demand will grow about 1 percent a year, down from peak demand growth of 2.75 percent a year, projected just two years ago. The figures were scaled back because of the economic downturn, the PSC said.

Colorado regulators vote for Xcel to shut 6 coal-fired plants

From an article by Mark Jaffe in the Denver Post:

The Colorado Public Utilities Commission voted Monday to shut six aging Front Range coal-fired power units and allow Xcel Energy to replace them with a new $530 million gas-fired plant.

Pollution controls, with a $340 million price tag, also were approved for the coal-burning Pawnee plant near Brush and the Hayden plant.

The commission still must decide what to do with the largest coal-burning plant in the Denver area — the Cherokee 4 unit.

"Cherokee 4 is the largest source of air pollution in the Denver area, and it needs to be shut," said John Nielson, energy-program director for the environmental-policy group Western Resource Advocates.

The closures, which will occur between 2011 and 2017, are part of Xcel's proposal to meet the state Clean Air- Clean Jobs Act, which seeks to cut nitrogen-oxide pollution by 70 to 80 percent.

Xcel would receive accelerated cost recovery for the investments in a comprehensive plan to cut pollution under the law.

The state is out of compliance with federal clean-air health standards and has to submit a plan next year to the Environmental Protection Agency showing steps to cut pollution.

Wisconsin Cannot Afford to Ignore Rising Coal Prices

For immediate release
December 1, 2010

More information
RENEW Wisconsin
Michael Vickerman
608.255.4044
mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org

Wisconsin Cannot Afford to Ignore Rising Coal Prices

Long-considered an inexpensive and reliable fuel source, coal has become subject to market and regulatory pressures that threaten to make it an expensive and risky way to generate electricity, according to national news reports and pertinent utility filings with the Wisconsin Public Service Commission (PSC).

“The expectation of continued increases in coal prices reinforces the value of relying on Wisconsin’s own energy resources. If there’s an effort to find savings for utility customers, the logical move would be to shutter antiquated coal plants before they become more of a liability,” said Michael Vickerman, Executive Director of RENEW Wisconsin, a statewide, nonprofit renewable energy advocacy organization.

A key driver behind coal’s rising cost is China, which has moved from an exporter to an importer of coal. The New York Times (NYT) reported last week that Chinese coal imports will hit all-time highs for November and December of this year. Some of this coal is coming from Wyoming’s Powder River Basin, the coal field that also supplies many Wisconsin power plants.¹

In the New York Times story, an executive from Peabody Energy, the world’s largest private coal company, predicted that his company will send larger and larger quantities of coal to China in the coming years.

Further adding to the upward price pressure on coal is the rising cost of diesel fuel. The PSC has estimated that half of the delivered cost of coal in Wisconsin is attributable to rail shipment, that is highly sensitive to the price of diesel fuel, which sells for 38 cents more per gallon than it did a year ago, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.² Tom Whipple, editor of the Peak Oil Review, expects diesel fuel supplies to tighten in 2011 as a consequence of flat production volumes and increasing demand from Asia.³ This phenomenon could affect Wisconsin electric utility rates as early as January 2011, according to Vickerman.

We Energies’ coal costs have escalated by $57 million, of which transportation costs account for almost $33 million, according to the utility’s most recent rate filing with the PSC. On top of that, We Energies expects to pay an additional $8 million in oil surcharge costs.4

Click to continue

Rising electricity cost has jolted state

From an article by Tom Content in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

The price of electricity has shot up faster in Wisconsin than in all but five other states since 2000, which could pose a threat to the state's economic competitiveness, a new analysis by the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance says.

Wisconsin businesses and homeowners are paying more than most surrounding states, as the state continues to pay for power plant upgrades that followed near-brownouts in the late 1990s.

That, coupled with rising natural gas and coal prices, has pushed rates up. The state's electricity prices, which ranked 11th-lowest in the nation in 1990, now rank 20th-highest, the report found.

"We need to recognize that energy prices really do have an effect on the competitiveness of the state," said Kyle Christianson, policy research analyst at the nonpartisan Taxpayers Alliance. "We're talking about trying to attract employers and adding new jobs, and particularly in a manufacturing-intensive economy like Wisconsin, energy prices are a major cost of doing business."

Utilities regulators defend Wisconsin's power plant building boom as important to keeping the state's economy competitive over the long run.

"A manufacturing state simply cannot survive without a reliable electric infrastructure," said Bob Norcross, administrator at the state Public Service Commission. "Wisconsin responded to its reliability crisis by making necessary investments that were in large part supported by the state's business community, and they were sound. The rebuilding period that accompanied those infrastructure investments is now reaching an end, but we need to pay for them - and that's why we have rate pressure. . . ."

Charlie Higley, executive director of the Wisconsin Citizens' Utility Board, is concerned that rate increases will continue for residential customers.

"Our households are paying a high price for electricity, and it's hurting their ability to make ends meet," Higley said.

Wisconsin now has a power glut that prompted the state Public Service Commission to launch an investigation into whether some of the state's older power plants should be mothballed or shut down.

Shutting down coal would help the state's customers from having to cover the rising coal prices, Higley said.

"Since we get most of our power from coal that means we're very susceptible to paying higher rates because of higher coal prices," Higley said. "It underlies our calls for moving toward cleaner energy solutions like renewable energy and energy efficiency, which don't have fuel costs."

But Klappa said the record power use this summer - in the midst of an economy that's slow to emerge from the Great Recession - underscores that Wisconsin doesn't have a power glut.

"We never had a 95-degree day this summer and we set two energy consumption records for customers, July for residential customers and August for small commercial and industrial customers," he said. "There's not a lot of excess."

Governor Doyle breaks ground on coal plant conversion to biomass

From a news release issued by Governor Doyle:

MADISON – Governor Jim Doyle today broke ground on the Charter Street Biomass Heating Plant project. The $251 million project is one of the largest biomass projects in the nation and will create construction and clean energy jobs. The project follows Governor Doyle’s 2008 announcement that Wisconsin would stop burning coal at state-owned heating plants on Madison’s Isthmus.

“In 2008, I announced plans to stop burning coal at state-owned heating plants on Madison’s Isthmus,” Governor Doyle said. “Today, we are breaking ground on the Charter Street biomass plant and taking a major step forward to make this goal a reality. The Charter Street plant will turn a waste stream into clean energy, it will keep energy dollars in our communities, and it will help clean our air and water. This project will create great jobs in Wisconsin and will develop a new biomass market from our great fields and farms.”

The Governor’s 2009-2011 capital budget included $251 million for the Charter Street project and $25 million to convert the Capitol Heat and Power Plant to natural gas. The Charter Street plant will support local biomass providers and eliminate over 108,000 tons of coal burned every year. In March, the state stopped burning coal at the Capitol Heat and Power Plant – eliminating 4,500 tons of coal burned by the state each year. When the Charter Street project is completed in 2013, the Doyle Administration will have reduced State of Wisconsin coal use by 65 percent.

The Charter Street project is a joint effort between AMEC and Boldt Construction. The plant’s coal boilers will first be replaced by natural gas and biomass fuel. The plant will run completely on biomass by late 2013, with the capacity to burn wood chips, corn stalks and switch grass pellets and power 300 local buildings.

State says power supplies will be plentiful through 2016

From an article by in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Construction of new power plants plus a recession that wiped out surging demand for electricity have brought on a power glut, with Wisconsin having more than enough power to meet its needs through 2016, a report released Tuesday says.

The state Public Service Commission's Strategic Energy Assessment, conducted every two years, is a planning document aimed at providing information about where the state stands in meeting its energy needs.

The assessment notes that the average price paid for electricity by Wisconsin businesses and residents has been rising and now stands above the Midwest average for residential, commercial and industrial customers.

Comparisons with other states can be difficult, the report notes, because of the different types of energy regulation that exist in different states. Nearby states such as Illinois and Michigan have opened up their power markets to competition.

Thanks to new power plants, such as the We Energies coal-fired power plant in Oak Creek, Wisconsin will have at least 24% more electricity available than it needs to meet projected demand, the report says.

"Excess reserves may increase the opportunity for Wisconsin utilities to export power in the regional market," the report says. "While this market is still evolving, the opportunity exists for excess generation sales to benefit ratepayers."

At the same time, the commission is investigating whether the power glut gives the state an opportunity to mothball or retire some of the state's aging coal-fired power plants.

Meet Butler Ridge, Wisconsin’s Newest Wind Project

By Michael Vickerman
September 30, 2010

On September 23, Alex DePillis and I hopped on board a tour bus filled with natural resource professionals and gave an overview of wind development in Wisconsin as we headed to the 54 MW Butler Ridge Wind Facility. The project is located in the Town of Herman in southeast Dodge County, a few miles west of State Highway 175. Most of the project’s 36 turbines are located south of State Highway 33.

The project was developed by Midwest Wind, which also developed the Cedar Ridge project owned by Alliant Energy. The project was sold to Babcock & Brown’s U.S. division, which then constructed the facility. The general contractor for that project was RES Americas. Butler Ridge was placed in commercial operation in March 2009. Right now, it is the newest utility-scale wind project in Wisconsin, but that distinction will only late this year, when Shirley Wind comes on-line.

In December 2009, NextEra Energy (formerly FPL Energy) bought Butler Ridge from Babcock and Brown. NextEra is also the owner of the Montfort project in Iowa County.

It turned out to be an excellent day to see wind generation in action. Thanks to a strengthening low pressure system to the west, there was a steady southerly air flow sweeping over southern Wisconsin that morning. Every flag we saw that morning was stiff as could be and pointing due north. Wind speeds at hub height ranged between 20 and 25 mph. The GE turbines were producing at about 75% of their rated capacity.

We stopped at Butler Ridge’s operations and maintenance center on Illinois Road. From the vantage point of the facility, we could see wind turbines in every direction. The closest turbine, at about 1,100 feet away, was audible but barely so.

PSC issues final report on the potential for carbon sequestration

From a news release issued by the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin:

MADISON – The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSC) in partnership with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) today issued a final report on the potential for geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide produced by coal-fired power plants serving Wisconsin electricity consumers.

Based on recommendations by the Governor's Task Force on Global Warming, the PSC and the DNR formed a Study Group to look into the potential for geologic carbon sequestration to help satisfy Wisconsin’s need for cleaner sources of electricity. Geologic sequestration involves a process of capturing carbon dioxide produced by power plants that otherwise would be released into the atmosphere and securely storing, or sequestering, the carbon dioxide (CO2) underground.

Carbon dioxide is one of several known greenhouse gases (GHG) that contribute to global warming.

“In a greenhouse gas limited economy and with Wisconsin’s reliance on coal for electric generation, carbon sequestration makes sense.” said PSC Commissioner Mark Meyer.

"Wisconsin is in a strong position to support ongoing carbon sequestration efforts and collaborate with other states and regions in making carbon sequestration possible.”

Key findings of the Study Group include:

+ Several promising technologies are being developed and tested for capturing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.
+ Carbon dioxide can be captured either pre- or post-combustion, depending on the type of power plant, and compressed for transport and sequestration.
+ Long-distance transport of carbon dioxide is a proven, viable option with over 3,000 miles of pipeline already in use for this purpose nationwide.
+ Wisconsin should consider a holistic approach to carbon sequestration that addresses both the public and private interests involved and will allow Wisconsin to work effectively and efficiently with adjacent states to implement proposed projects.
+ Wisconsin may benefit long-term from the further exploration and development of CO2 storage in the region; however, it is not very likely to happen in the short-term (2 to 5 years) or mid-term (5 to 20 years).

The final report also includes analysis of three potential scenarios in which carbon from generating facilities serving Wisconsin customers could be captured, transported and sequestered.

Wind generation reduces climate-changing emissions

From a report titled "The Facts about Wind Energy’s Emissions Savings" prepared by the American Wind Energy Association:

. . . four of the seven major independent grid operators in the
U.S. have studied the emissions impact of adding wind energy to their power grids, and all four have found that adding wind energy drastically reduces emissions of carbon dioxide and other harmful pollutants. While the emissions savings depend somewhat on the existing share of coal-fired versus gas-fired generation in the region, as one would expect, it is impossible to dispute the findings of these four independent grid operators that adding wind energy to their grids has significantly reduced emissions. . . .

DOE data show that wind and other renewables’ share of Texas’s
electric mix increased from 1.3% in 2005 to 4.4% in 2008, an increase in share of 3.1 percentage points. During that period, electric sector carbon dioxide emissions declined by 3.3%, even though electricity use actually increased by 2% during that time. Because of wind energy, the state of Texas was able to turn what would have been a carbon emissions increase into a decrease of 8,690,000 metric tons per year, equal to the emissions savings of taking around 1.5 million cars off the road.

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.

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."

Renewable Energy Not Responsible for MGE Rate Increase

IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 27, 2010

MORE INFORMATION
Michael Vickerman
RENEW Wisconsin
608.255.4044
mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org


Renewable Energy Not Responsible for MGE Rate Increase

Higher costs associated with fossil fuel generation are driving Madison Gas & Electric’s costs higher, according to testimony submitted by company witnesses. The utility filed an application last week with the Public Service Commission (PSC) to collect an additional $32.2 million through a 9% increase in electric rates starting January 2011.

The bulk of the rate increase can be attributed to expenses associated with burning coal to generate electricity. A 22% owner of the 1,020-megawatt (MW) Columbia Generating Station near Portage, Madison Gas & Electric (MGE) and the owner plant owners plan to retrofit the 35-year-old facility to reduce airborne emissions. The cost of Columbia’s environmental retrofit is expected to total $640 million, of which MGE’s share is about $140 million.

MGE also owns an 8% share of the state’s newest coal-fired station, the 1,230-MW Elm Road Generating Station located in Oak Creek. A portion of the proposed rate hike would cover lease payments and other expenses at that plant.

MGE’s application does not attribute any portion of its proposed rate hike to renewable energy sources. However, MGE plans to increase the premium associated with its voluntary Green Power Tomorrow program from 1.25 cents per kilowatt-hour to 2 cents. RENEW estimates that the premium hike will collect more than $1 million in 2011 from the approximately 10,000 customers participating in the program.

According to the utility’s web site, 10% of MGE's electric customers purchase some or all of their electricity from renewable resources. Moreover, Green Power Tomorrow has the second highest participation rate of all investor-owned utilities in the country according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Not surprisingly, MGE anticipates subscribership in Green Power Tomorrow to decrease if the PSC approves the higher premium. Currently, the program accounts for about 5% of total electric sales. Program subscribers include the City of Madison, State of Wisconsin, Dane County Regional Airport, Madison West High School, Goodman Community Center and Home Savings Bank.

According to MGE, sinking fossil fuel prices have widened the difference between wholesale power costs and the cost of supplying customers with renewable energy. However, it is worth remembering that the cost of supplying power from MGE’s renewable energy assets, such as its Rosiere installation in Kewaunee County and Top of Iowa project, did not increase last year and will not increase in the foreseeable future.

“Even though the cost of MGE’s windpower supplies is not going up, Green Power Tomorrow customers will take a double hit if the PSC approves this rate increase and request for higher premiums,” said RENEW Wisconsin executive Director Michael Vickerman. “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.”

“It would be short-sighted to penalize renewable energy purchasers just because fossil fuel prices are in a temporary slump,” Vickerman said. “But if MGE is allowed to institute this penalty at the same time it imposes the cost of cleaning up an older coal-fired generator on all of its customers, including its Green Power Tomorrow subscribers, it would have a profoundly negative impact on the renewable energy marketplace going forward.”

“This is the wrong time to be throwing up barriers to renewable energy development. We at RENEW will fight proposals that reward fossil fuel use and penalize renewable energy,” Vickerman added.

END

RENEW Wisconsin (www.renewwisconsin.org) 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.

RENEW Wisconsin calls for veto of waste-to-energy bill

IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 23, 2010

MORE INFORMATION
Michael Vickerman
RENEW Wisconsin
608.255.4044
mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org

RENEW Wisconsin Calls for Veto of Waste-to-Energy Bill

RENEW Wisconsin called on Governor Jim Doyle to veto a bill that allows garbage to qualify as a renewable energy resource.

“The bill (Senate Bill 273), passed in the last hours of the final legislative session, would lead to a cutback in new clean-energy installations using solar, wind, biogas, and biomass,” said Michael Vickerman, executive director of RENEW Wisconsin, a statewide renewable energy advocacy organization.

The bill would credit electricity from gasification of garbage toward the amount of renewable energy each Wisconsin utility must supply under current law.

“By failing to pass the Clean Energy Jobs Act, the Legislature essentially froze the overall percentage of renewable energy that Wisconsin utilities must supply to customers,” said Vickerman.

“Adding solid waste to the list of eligible resources without raising the percentage above the current requirement will result in a reduction of electricity derived from truly sustainable renewable resources.”

“No way can anyone legitimately say that this bill expands renewable energy in Wisconsin.”

“All in all, this session will be remembered as a wasted opportunity for clean energy and job creation,” Vickerman said.

“When we entered the month of April, we had high hopes for the Clean Energy Jobs Act, a bill that would have forcefully sent Wisconsin down a path to energy independence while creating thousands of new jobs. Instead, the Legislature crammed garbage down the throats of utility customers.”

“No other legislative body in history has managed to trash Earth Day and the legacy of Wisconsin’s own Gaylord Nelson as completely as the Wisconsin Senate whose leaders wouldn’t allow a vote on the Clean Energy Jobs Act,” according to Vickerman.

“Governor Doyle can honor Gaylord Nelson by vetoing SB 273.”

END

NREL sudy shows 20% wind is possible by 2024

From a news release issued by the National Renewable Energy Lab:

[T]he U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) released the Eastern Wind Integration and Transmission Study (EWITS). This unprecedented two-and-a-half year technical study of future high-penetration wind scenarios was designed to analyze the economic, operational, and technical implications of shifting 20 percent or more of the Eastern Interconnection’s electrical load to wind energy by the year 2024.

“Twenty percent wind is an ambitious goal, but this study shows that there are multiple scenarios through which it can be achieved,” said David Corbus, NREL project manager for the study. “Whether we’re talking about using land-based wind in the Midwest, offshore wind in the East or any combination of wind power resources, any plausible scenario requires transmission infrastructure upgrades and we need to start planning for that immediately.”

The study identified operational best practices and analyzed wind resources, future wind deployment scenarios, and transmission options. Among its key findings are:

•The integration of 20 percent wind energy is technically feasible, but will require significant expansion of the transmission infrastructure and system operational changes in order for it to be realized;
•Without transmission enhancements, substantial curtailment of wind generation would be required for all 20 percent wind scenarios studied;
•The relative cost of aggressively expanding the existing transmission grid represents only a small portion of the total annualized costs in any of the scenarios studied;
•Drawing wind energy from a larger geographic area makes it both less expensive and a more reliable energy source – increasing the geographic diversity of wind power projects in a given operating pool makes the aggregated wind power output more predictable and less variable;
•Wind energy development is a highly cost-effective way to reduce carbon emissions – as more wind energy comes online, less energy from fossil-fuel burning plants is required, reducing greenhouse gas emissions;
•Carbon emissions are reduced by similar amounts in all scenarios, indicating that transmission helps to optimize the electrical system and does not result in coal power being shipped from the Midwest to New England States;
•Reduced fossil fuel expenditures more than pay for the increased costs of additional transmission in all high wind scenarios.

The staggering cost of new nuclear power

From an article by Joseph Room on Center for American Progress:

A new study puts the generation costs for power from new nuclear plants at 25 to 30 cents per kilowatt-hour—triple current U.S. electricity rates!

This staggering price is far higher than the cost of a variety of carbon-free renewable power sources available today—and 10 times the cost of energy efficiency (see “Is 450 ppm possible? Part 5: Old coal’s out, can’t wait for new nukes, so what do we do NOW?”

The new study, “Business Risks and Costs of New Nuclear Power,” is one of the most detailed cost analyses publically available on the current generation of nuclear power plants being considered in this country. It is by a leading expert in power plant costs, Craig A. Severance. A practicing CPA, Severance is co-author of The Economics of Nuclear and Coal Power (Praeger 1976), and former assistant to the chairman and to commerce counsel, Iowa State Commerce Commission.

This important new analysis is being published by Climate Progress because it fills a critical gap in the current debate over nuclear power—transparency. Severance explains:

All assumptions, and methods of calculation are clearly stated. The piece is a deliberate effort to demystify the entire process, so that anyone reading it (including non-technical readers) can develop a clear understanding of how total generation costs per kWh come together.

As stunning as this new, detailed cost estimate is, it should not come as a total surprise. I detailed the escalating capital costs of nuclear power in my May 2008 report, “The Self-Limiting Future of Nuclear Power.” And in a story last week on nuclear power’s supposed comeback, Time magazine notes that nuclear plants’ capital costs are “out of control,” concluding:

Most efficiency improvements have been priced at 1¢ to 3¢ per kilowatt-hour, while new nuclear energy is on track to cost 15¢ to 20¢ per kilowatt-hour. And no nuclear plant has ever been completed on budget.

Time buried that in the penultimate paragraph of the story!

We Energies coal plant hits milestone, generates power

From a Tom Content post on JSOnline:

We Energies’ newest coal-fired plant is generating power, after “significant progress” in construction over the past three months, the company’s chairman said Thursday.

The coal plant consists of two coal-fired boilers next to an older coal plant on Lake Michigan in Oak Creek. The first new boiler began burning coal earlier this month and has been running at 25% of maximum power in recent days, said Gale Klappa, We Energies chairman and chief executive.

Bechtel Power Corp., the contractor on the project, also has made progress on building the second boiler, which is now 74% complete, Klappa said.

The $2.3 billion project is the most expensive construction project in state history, as it’s roughly double the combined cost of building Miller Park and rebuilding the Marquette Interchange.

PSC Approves Biomass Conversion at Bay Front Power Plant

From a news release issued by the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin:

MADISON – In a unanimous decision today, the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSC) approved Northern States Power Company-Wisconsin’s (NSPW) proposal to install the nation’s largest biomass gasifier, a system that will produce synthetic gas from biomass for the production of electricity at the company’s Bay Front Power Plan in Ashland, Wisconsin.

The PSC’s decision today will allow NSPW to convert one of the plant’s coal burning boilers to one that generates electricity from burning a variety of wood types found in Wisconsin. The new biomass gasifier will be able to produce 20 megawatts of electricity from biomass fuel sources, while producing an additional 8 megawatts through the use of natural gas.

“This project swaps out 20 megawatts of old, boutique coal for locally grown biomass, keeping ratepayers’ fuel dollars in Wisconsin,” said Chairperson Eric Callisto. “Our ratepayers send over a billion dollars out of state every year to buy coal for power generation. Today’s decision helps keep more of those dollars here in Wisconsin. . . .”

The technology approved at the plant has been developed over the past half century and is being used throughout the world because of growing interest in clean, renewable energy. Hundreds of biomass gasifiers are in operation globally, with most of them found in Asia and Europe at small-scale plants that provide comparatively small amounts of heat or electricity to farms and small industries. To date, the use of biomass gasifiers for the production of electricity in the U.S. has been predominantly small in scale, although some larger units have been installed in recent years.

Documents associated with NSPW’s application can be viewed on our Electronic Regulatory Filing System at http://psc.wi.gov. Enter case number 4220-CE-169 in the boxes provided on the PSC homepage, or click on the Electronic Regulatory Filing System button.

Glacier Hills Wind Park hearing, Nov. 4

The Public Service Commission will take public testimony on We Energies' proposed Glacier Hills Wind Park.

Wednesday, November 4
3 p.m. and 7 p.m.
Randolph Town Hall
109 S. Madison St. – Friesland

Those opposed to wind projects will likely make arguments like the one below from letter-to-the-editor of the Manitowoc Times Herald. The writere offered this outrageous explanation for why the Legislature passed and the govenor signed the bill on wind siting reform:

Blinded by a feel-good solution for a problem that never existed [global warming], legislators are being misled into a belief that something like wind turbines will not have a negative effect on those who are left to live around them . . .

To understand the problem you needed to be at the hearing in Mandison on May 12, held by the Senate and Assembly Energy Committee. . . .

It was obvious that the pro-wind lobby, paid with your tax money from RENEW Wisconsin, had the minds of legislators on their side long before the hearing.

Read more wild assertions from the letter.