Better Plan, Wisconsin

 

"It's a death sentence.

This has everything to do with eliminating wind power. That's why the proposal is so high.

It's a hit job."

- Michael Vickerman, who was a registered lobbyist for RENEW Wisconsin whose clients include Alliant Energy, ATC, We Energies, MG&E, North American Hydro, WPPI, and many wind developers with projects pending in our state. [SOURCE]

REFORM BILL POSES THREAT TO WIND FARMS IN OUR STATE

SOURCE: Wisconsin State Journal

January 15, 2011

By CLAY BARBOUR

Buried in a regulatory reform bill proposed by Gov. Scott Walker earlier this week lies a provision that wind energy insiders say could shut down 12 wind farm projects, cost investors billions and essentially kill the industry in the state.

In the bill announced Tuesday, Walker seeks to quadruple the distance between wind turbines and neighboring property.

The governor said the provision was written to protect homeowners, many of whom have complained about the encroachment of wind turbines in the rural parts of the state. Opponents of wind farms have complained of diminished property values, occasional noise pollution, moving shadows cast by the giant machines and loss of sleep from vibrations.

But critics this week called the provision a job killer and said it would earn Wisconsin a reputation for being hostile to alternative energy sources, such as wind.

"It would in essence shut down wind energy in the state," said Denise Bode, CEO of the American Wind Energy Association. "It is one of the most onerous regulations we have seen."

Bode said that, if passed, the measure would shut down 12 wind farm projects worth about $1.8 billion. Those projects, which are in various stages of planning, could produce about 950 full-time jobs for one year, she said.

"This is a shock to those of us in the wind industry," Bode said. "This will cause projects to go to other states."

Walker spokesman Cullen Werwie would not comment on specific criticisms of the bill, instead reiterating what has become the new Republican governor's mantra. "Governor Walker is focused on ensuring Wisconsin has a business climate that allows the private sector to create 250,000 jobs across all economic sectors," he said.

The proposal was met with applause from wind farm critics, like Elizabeth Ebertz. Ebertz, 67, lives in a little valley about a half-mile from a dozen 400-foot-tall wind turbines. The structures are part of the Blue Sky Green Field Wind Energy Center in northeastern Fond du Lac County, one of the state's largest wind farms, capable of producing energy for about 36,000 homes.

But according to Ebert, the turbines also produce enough noise to chase her from the garden - and, on most nights, disturb her sleep.

"I think it's a terrific idea, and long overdue," she said. "I have a lot of them now and I'd like to get rid of them."

‘Death sentence'

Bode said the wind industry employs about 3,000 people in Wisconsin. The state spends about $1.5 billion on imported energy every year and ranks 16th in the country in available wind.

According to the AWEA, Wisconsin has the capacity to produce up to 449 megawatts of energy from its existing wind farms - enough to power about 110,000 homes. Yet it trails other Midwestern states in wind energy production. Minnesota wind farms produce 1,797 megawatts, Illinois produces 1,848 and Iowa generates 3,670.

Industry insiders hoped new rules approved by former Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle would end years of localized fights - often spurred by well-funded anti-wind organizations - that killed at least 10 proposed wind farms in the past eight years and scared off several others.

Supporters hoped the new rules would help the state reach its goal of generating 10 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2015. Renewable sources account for 5 percent of the state's energy now.

But Walker's proposal has many wondering what the future holds for the industry. Currently the state requires turbines have a setback from the nearest property line of 1.1 times the height of the turbine, or roughly 450 feet. The turbines are also required to have a setback of 1,250 feet from a home.

Walker's provision would push the setback from the property line to 1,800 feet (almost six football fields), a distance that industry experts say is unheard of in other states.

"It's a death sentence," said Michael Vickerman, executive director of RENEW Wisconsin, a Madison nonprofit that promotes clean energy. "This has everything to do with eliminating wind power. That's why the proposal is so high. It's a hit job."

Taking their business elsewhere

Vickerman said the new rules, if approved, would essentially end the industry's growth here. His sentiment is shared by many in the wind industry.

"This regulation goes far beyond what any other state has done," said Tim Polz, vice president of Midwest Wind Energy, a company currently planning a large wind farm in Calumet County. "This will kill our project."

The Chicago-based Midwest has developed seven wind farms in total and has 12 more in the planning stages. The company already built two wind farms in Wisconsin: the 36-turbine Butler Ridge Wind Energy Project in Dodge County and the 41-turbine Cedar Ridge Wind Farm in Fond du Lac County.

Polz said Midwest has already spent three years and about $1 million on the Calumet County project, which would employ between 150 and 200 construction workers for up to 18 months if it moved forward.

"This sends the message to us that Wisconsin does not want our business," he said.

Dean Baumgardner, executive vice president for the St. Louis-based Wind Capital Group, said Walker's proposal was disappointing, especially considering the governor's vow to create jobs.

Wind Capital, which has an office in Madison, has developed six farms and has 20 more in the planning stages - including a 40- to 60-turbine farm in Grant County. Baumgardner said Walker's proposal will likely kill the Grant County farm.

"But we will keep building wind farms," he said. "We will just do it elsewhere."

SECOND FEATURE:

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

The setbacks proposed in the Walker bill will not be the strictest in the nation as stated in the article below. The claim seems to be based on statements from Denise Bode, head of the Amercian Wind Energy Association which is the largest wind lobbying organization in the nation.

EXTRA CREDIT QUESTION: Who is Denise Bode? Scroll down past the RED HANDS to read more about the AWEA and Denise Bode.

PROPOSED WIND RESTRICTIONS WOULD BE STRICTEST IN NATION

 SOURCE Journal Sentinel, www.jsonline.com 

January 14, 2011

By Thomas Content

The head of a wind industry trade group and a lobbyist for the Wisconsin Realtors Association squared off over Gov. Scott Walker’s wind farm siting proposals.

Denise Bode, chief executive of the American Wind Energy Association weighed in Friday on Wisconsin’s proposed wind-siting rule, calling it “the biggest barrier” to wind development in the country.

“This will be the biggest regulatory barrier in terms of setbacks in the country,” said Denise Bode, chief executive of the AWEA, based in Washington, D.C., in an interview Friday afternoon. “You’re adding a new regulator barrier and putting a ‘closed for business’ sign on Wisconsin for wind development.”

A restrictive environment for wind development will create a chilling effect for companies that manufacture parts for wind turbines to want to open plants in the state, following the lead of firms like TowerTech in Manitowoc and Ingeteam, which is building a factory in the Menomonee River Valley.

Many states have no setback requirements, deferring to local units of government. Of those that do, none has a setback as far as Wisconsin’s proposal, Bode said.

But Tom Larson, chief lobbyist for the Wisconsin Realtors Association, said the proposal is a strong defense for property rights.

“We think that with this bill Wisconsin would be the only state in the country to have an adequate setback for property owners,” said Larson.

He called the rule adopted by the Public Service Commission “the poster child for Scott Walker’s regulatory reform on how administrative rules are made,” noting that the rule was enacted by an agency and not elected government officials.

Developing wind farms in Wisconsin has generated more controversy than in some other states in part because its areas most suitable for wind turbines are more densely populated than rural expanses of Iowa, Minnesota and the Dakotas that host wind projects.

Opposition to wind farms led some counties to enact wind power moratoriums and other restrictive rules. The patchwork of local rules stalled projects, prompting the state Legislature to pass legislation to set a statewide standard.

Bode said the industry wasn’t pleased with – but could live with – the standard that was adopted by the Public Service Commission last year, Bode said.

Dan Ebert, who chairs the state’s wind siting advisory council, said the end result wasn’t perfect, but it did a better job at balancing the competing interests with this issue.

“We shouldn’t have the Realtors Association dictating energy policy in this state,” he said.

The proposed rule is more aggressive than the PSC rule because it would cover large utility-scale wind farm as well as smaller wind farms, said Ebert, a senior vice president with WPPI Energy in Sun Prairie.

Better Plan encourages you to contact Governor Walker's office to thank him for including these more protective setbacks in this bill and to also contact your senator and representative to encourage them to support it.

 CONTACT Governor Scott Walker govgeneral@wisconsin.gov
115 East Capitol
Madison WI 53702
(608) 266-1212 

CONTACT Legislators  

Who Are My Legislators?  To find out, CLICK HERE

Senate | Members | E-Mail Directory

Assembly | Members | E-Mail Directory

MORE ON WIND LOBBYISTS:

WANT BIG WIND? CHANGE THE LAW! ALL IT TAKES IS FIVE MILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF LOBBYING MONEY

Industry blitzes hill on Schumer bill, renewable mandate

SOURCE: The New York Times, www.nytimes.com

By ANNE C. MULKERN of Greenwire, 

March 9, 2010

"The wind industry over the last year has made a major lobbying push. In 2009, the industry tripled spending on influence efforts from a year earlier. The American Wind Energy Association paid $5 million for lobbying in 2009, compared with $1.7 million the previous year, the highest amount ever for the association and a sixth of the $30.1 million spent by all renewable companies combined. It came in the same year that the wind industry saw its prospects lifted by legislation."

CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE ARTICLE

 Industrial scale wind farms, such as the one being proposed in the Columbia County Towns of Randolph and Scott, are supposed to help to solve that problem by replacing our coal plants.

On the surface it seems pretty simple: just replace dirty coal with clean wind.

The problem is not a single coal fired plant has ever been taken off line in exchange for wind power. Not in the US, not anywhere in the world, including Denmark and Germany, two countries that use the most wind power in their energy mix, and yet continue to burn fossil fuels at an unchanged rate.  In fact, during Germany’s expanded use of more renewable energy, they've also built more coal plants.

 The elephant in the room is this: If coal fired plants are not taken off line in exchange for renewable energy, the current level of air pollution remains the same.

Which brings us to the state of Wisconsin, home to about 300 industrial scale wind turbines with hundreds more being proposed.

The question about what actual impact Wisconsin wind farms are having in terms of reducing current levels of air pollution in our state has never been fully addressed by state environmental organizations except in theory. Theoretically they should reduce GHG, but what are the facts?

 Clean Wisconsin decided to step up and ask the hard questions. Their conclusions are presented in the post-hearing brief filed with the Public Service Commission in response to the proposed Glacier Hills wind farm.

QUOTE:"This practice means that approval of Glacier Hills alone would have literally no impact on GHG reductions. On the contrary, WEPCO would have a financial incentive to generate as much electricity as possible from its coal-fired facilities."

 Though Clean Wisconsin supports the project for the economic benefits it may bring, they clearly point out that unless WEPCO retires a coal burning plant, the construction of the Glacier hills wind farm [and Invenergy's alternate proposed wind farm] will have no effect on reduction of green house gasses in our state.  And they clearly lay out the reasons why.

QUOTE: "One could therefore theoretically satisfy the RPS requirement of a specified percentage of electricity generation from renewable resources while undermining the global warming objectives of reducing GHGs emitted into the atmosphere. That is precisely what will happen here if the Commission does not restrain WEPCO’s electricity generation from coal-fired facilities."

QUOTE: "If the Commission allows WEPCO to continue construct [sic] Glacier Hills and operate all of its existing coal-fired capacity, WEPCO’s ratepayers will be paying over $525 million for a new facility that is not needed to satisfy demand and will not result in overall CO2 emission reductions."

QUOTE: “For these reasons approval and implementation of either of the wind power proposals will not achieve their intended effect of reducing GHGs and will result in significant excess capacity unless the Commission also requires WEPCO to reduce its coal-fired generating capacity."

 By their willingness to acknowledge and address the difficult questions head on, Clean Wisconsin proves themselves to be an organization truly committed to protecting Wisconsin's environment and finding real ways to reduce current levels of pollution in our state.

NOTE: There is no indication that WEPCO intends to shut down any of its coal fired plants in exchange for wind energy.

 The complete text of the brief is provided below. It can also be downloaded at the Public Service Commission’s website by clicking here and entering docket number 6630-CE-302

[Better Plan has put the more interesting parts of the brief below in bold type]

 BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN
Application for a Certificate of Public )
Convenience and Necessity to Construct )
and Place in Service a Wind Turbine Electric ) Docket No. 6630-CE-302
Generation Facility Known as the Glacier Hills )
Wind Park in Columbia County, Wisconsin )
______________________________________________________________________________
CLEAN WISCONSIN, INC.’S INITIAL POST-HEARING BRIEF
_____________________________________________________________________________ _
INTRODUCTION

Clean Wisconsin, Inc. (“Clean Wisconsin”) strongly supports the development of renewable energy resources in Wisconsin, including wind power.

Renewable energy resources are important components for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases (“GHGs”), which are a significant contributor to global warming. In order to meet this principal objective of reducing GHG emissions, however, the added renewable energy facilities must actually displace the primary source of GHG emissions: coal-fired electric generating facilities.

Clean Wisconsin appreciates the efforts by the applicant, Wisconsin Electric Power Company (“WEPCO”), to develop the Glacier Hills proposal. Clean Wisconsin urges the Public Service Commission (“Commission”) to approve the Glacier Hills project or the Ledge Wind purchased power alternative proposed by Invenergy in this docket as economically beneficial alternatives to meeting statutory renewable fuel requirements.

However, the mere approval of a wind facility will not serve the legislative and societal goal of the Renewable Portfolio Standard (“RPS”) unless the Commission also requires a corresponding reduction of coal generating capacity.

The undisputed evidence in the record, neither challenged nor questioned by WEPCO or Commission staff, demonstrates the following:

1. The application is designed to satisfy the RPS standard, but it is not needed to meet demand in WEPCO’s service area. In fact, WEPCO will have excess capacity for several years without any new generating capacity. Even without the new generating capacity necessary to meet the statutory RPS requirement, WEPCO will have excess capacity until at least 2024.

2. The development of an RPS facility does not ensure that it will be operated, or that it will displace high-GHG facilities. Under the regional MISO system, MISO may require the dispatch of any available facility to satisfy demand within the MISO region. MISO dispatches facilities based on cost: it will dispatch the available facility that is lowest cost based on the locational marginal price (“LMP”). If a coal-fired generating facility is available for dispatch, MISO will require that WEPCO dispatch the coal-generated electricity if it represents the LMP.

3. There is concern at the regional level about events in which utilities dispatch coal generated electricity ahead of wind-generated electricity, and the effects of this phenomenon on RPS compliance and costs.

4. Irrespective of whether MISO requires the dispatch of coal-generated electricity, WEPCO intends to sell all of its excess capacity. If there is a market, it will continue to generate electricity from its coal-fired plants regardless of the dispatch from Glacier Hills. This practice means that approval of Glacier Hills alone
would have literally no impact on GHG reductions. On the contrary, WEPCO would have a financial incentive to generate as much electricity as possible from its coal-fired facilities.

For these reasons, approval and implementation of either of the wind power proposals will not achieve their intended effect of reducing GHGs and will result in significant excess capacity unless the Commission also requires WEPCO to reduce its coal-fired generating capacity.

ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE

I. WEPCO HAS PROPOSED GLACIER HILLS TO SATISFY RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARDS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING THE GOAL OF REDUCING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.

- 3 -
Under Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d) and Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 111.53, a public utility may not begin construction of a new plant, facility or equipment without a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (“CPCN”) complying with the applicable rules of the Commission.

The statutory requirements for an application for a CPCN include determinations of need and cost-effectiveness, and specifically include the following:

3. The design and location or route is in the public interest considering alternative sources of supply, alternative locations or routes, individual hardships, engineering, economic, safety, reliability and environmental factors.

WEPCO does not seek approval of Glacier Hills based on need and cost-effectiveness of satisfying demand in its service area. Rather, WEPCO has applied for a CPCN to satisfy the RPS requirements under Wis. Stat. § 196.378 (also referred to as “Act 141”). See, e.g., Application (Exhibit 1) at 1-2; Hesselbach Direct Testimony at 107-108; Elver Direct Testimony at 125-128. The application therefore must be reviewed in the context of satisfying the RPS goals and requirements.

The principal goal of Act 141 is to increase the use of renewable resources, which are defined by statute to include renewable fuel cells, tidal/wave action, solar, wind, geothermal and biomass. Wis. Stat. 196.378(1)(h)1.  A primary purpose of this statute is to reduce Wisconsin’s reliance on and generation of electricity using fossil fuels (especially coal) that result in significant GHG emissions (especially CO2). See Mendl Direct Testimony at D4.5-P.1

The RPS targets for percentage of electricity generation from renewable resources focus on “electric energy consumed in the state.” Wis. Stat. § 196.378(2)(a). That is, the RPS does not account for generation of electricity in Wisconsin from non-renewable resources.

One could therefore theoretically satisfy the RPS requirement of a specified percentage of electricity generation from renewable resources while undermining the global warming objectives of reducing GHGs emitted into the atmosphere.

That is precisely what will happen here if the Commission does not restrain WEPCO’s electricity generation from coal-fired facilities.

II. RETIREMENT OR OTHER REDUCTION IN COAL-FIRED GENERATING CAPACITY IS NECESSARY FOR GLACIER HILLS TO SERVE ITS GHG-REDUCTION PURPOSE.

A. Glacier Hills or Ledge Wind Are Not Necessary to Satisfy Demand in WEPCO’s Service Area and Would Result in Excess Capacity for at least 12-14 Years.

There is no dispute that Glacier Hills is not necessary to satisfy demand in WEPCO’s service area, the conventional “need” requirement for a CPCN. WEPCO’s application acknowledges that if the application is approved, it would have excess capacity until at least 2019. See, e.g., Exhibit 1, § 1.3 at 2.

In its supplemental direct testimony based on revised forecasts and modeling, WEPCO testified that it would have excess capacity until at least 2024. See,Mendl Direct Testimony at D4.3-P; D4.5-P.

If one accounts for all additional capacity necessary to satisfy its RPS requirement, it is undisputed that WEPCO will have excess capacity until at least 2026. Mendl Direct Testimony at D4.3-P; D4.5-P.

B. Under the MISO System, WEPCO’s Coal-Fired Facilities May Be Required to Operate Notwithstanding the Availability of Renewable Resource Facilities.

WEPCO’s EGEAS modeling and testimony was based on its expected cost and dispatch of electric generating units within its own system, accounting for only its own resources. Exhibit 305; Mendl D4.13-P.

The modeling and assumptions do not reflect the reality of how units are dispatched because they ignore the fact that dispatch is directed on a regional basis by MISO.

Exhibit 307 is WEPCO’s response to discovery request 2-CWI-7. In that exhibit, WEPCO explained that under the MISO tariff, all WEPCO plants must be offered in the MISO Energy Market; and that MISO will dispatch units across the system based on cost. See also, Mendl Direct Testimony at D4.13-P.

The significance of the MISO Energy Market is profound. If a WEPCO coal-fired plant is available and within the price margin, it will be selected for dispatch irrespective of the availability of Glacier Hills or other facilities with a lower GHG profile. That is, MISO could dictate that WEPCO operate Pleasant Prairie or another coal-fired plant because of its low marginal cost, when it would otherwise select Glacier Hills or Port Washington. Id. at D4.13-P to D4.14-P.

The end result would be that, notwithstanding the construction and use of Glacier Hills, Wisconsin would be an underperforming state in terms of CO2 emissions reductions. Id.

Another unintended consequence is that the utility could operate (or be required to operate) a coal-fired facility in lieu of wind even though the cost of wind generation is logically lower. As Mr. Mendl explained, price is based on the locational marginal price (“LMP”) at the location of the vicinity. His evaluation of the LMPs at Columbia, in the vicinity of Glacier Hills, showed that there have been periodic negative LMPs (i.e., the utility pays MISO to take its energy production). Id. at D4.16-P. When price is set on a negative LMP, the utility’s interest is to shut down that resource. As Mr. Mendl explained in his testimony: The analysis suggests that particularly in summer months, when strongly negative LMPs can occur, it would be in the economic interest of the wind generator to shut down the wind turbines, which have zero fuel cost and produce no CO2; and instead operate coal plants that incur fuel costs and generate CO2. In essence the way the MISO market works, free energy with the environmental benefits is too expensive!

Id. at D4.18-P. It bears reiteration that no party disputed this evidence and analysis: not WEPCO, not Invenergy, not the Commission staff.

C. Unless Required to Be Retired by the Commission, WEPCO Intends to Operate its Coal Fired Plants Irrespective of Need, and Sell Its Excess Generation.

There is no dispute that WEPCO intends to sell its excess capacity on the open market.
Exhibit 302 is a discovery response from WEPCO to 2-CWI-14, which identifies the amount of excess capacity that WEPCO expects to sell over the next ten years. That amount was based on its original forecast. Under its updated forecast reflected in its supplemental testimony, WEPCO would have more excess capacity available for sale. See also, Mendl Direct Testimony at D4.5-P to D4.6-P.

It is also undisputed that if WEPCO sells its excess capacity as planned, there will be little or no reduction in CO2 emissions from its electric generating fleet. Id. at D4.6-P.

As Mr. Mendl observed: The net result of building Glacier Hills to comply with Wisconsin RPS requirements and then selling the excess capacity may be to improve the economics, but it would lessen the reduction in CO2 emissions relative to WEPCO’s analysis. Id. at D4.7-P.

If the Commission allows WEPCO to continue construct Glacier Hills and operate all of its existing coal-fired capacity, WEPCO’s ratepayers will be paying over $525 million for a new facility that is not needed to satisfy demand and will not result in overall CO2 emission reductions.

II. COMMISSION SHOULD REQUIRE WEPCO TO SUBMIT A PROPOSAL FOR RETIREMENT OF 100 MEGAWATTS OF COAL-FIRED GENERATING CAPACITY.

The obvious and logical solution to the potential negative consequences described above is for WEPCO reduce the amount of coal-fired capacity that is available for dispatch in the MISO Energy Market. The only effective way to achieve this result is to retire existing coalfired facilities.

WEPCO has requested to increase its electric generating portfolio by Glacier Hills, with a rated capacity of 162 MW, part of the 662 mw of wind generation it predicts it will need to meet its RPS requirements. Ex.1, p. 2.

Glacier Hills has an accredited capacity of approximately 100 MW, as it operates intermittently based on the availability of wind. The evidence also indicates that WEPCO has excess capacity of 212-347 MW over the next decade. Id. at D4.6-P.

Accordingly, WEPCO can retire at least 100 MW of coal-fired capacity without jeopardizing reliability or its ability to satisfy demand within its service area, and it would still have excess capacity well into the 2020s.

CONCLUSION

Clean Wisconsin recognizes and agrees with the importance of the RPS requirement, the economic and environmental benefits of wind power, and the need for WEPCO to develop or purchase electricity generated from renewable resources.

While Clean Wisconsin has taken no position on the relative benefits of Glacier Hills versus Ledge Wind, Clean Wisconsin strongly urges the Commission to approve one of these facilities to partially satisfy WEPCO’s RPS
requirements in a cost-effective manner.

Clean Wisconsin also submits that the mere approval of one of the proposed wind power alternatives will not satisfy the statutory goal of reducing GHG emissions in Wisconsin. In order
to effectuate this goal, the Commission must also require that facilities with high CO2 and other GHG emissions be retired, so that those facilities cannot be operated to satisfy demand outside of Wisconsin while effectively placing the GHG emissions burden, with its expected CO2 costs, squarely on the shoulders of Wisconsin’s ratepayers and our environment.

Clean Wisconsin therefore asks that the Commission require, as a condition of approval, that WEPCO develop a proposal, on an aggressive schedule, to retire at least 100 MW of existing coal-fired capacity.

Dated this 24th day of November, 2009.
Respectfully submitted,
CLEAN WISCONSIN, INC.
/s/ Katie Nekola
_______________________________
Katie Nekola
State Bar No. 1053203
ADDRESS:
122 State Street, Suite 200
Madison, WI 53703
(608) 251-7020 x 14 (direct)
(608) 212-8751 (cell)
E-mail: knekola@cleanwisconsin.org
AXLEY BRYNELSON, LLP
/s/ Carl Sinderbrand
____________________________
Carl A. Sinderbrand
State Bar No. 1018593
Attorneys for Clean Wisconsin, Inc.
ADDRESS
2 E. Mifflin St., Suite 200
Madison, WI 53703
(608) 257-5661
(608) 260-2472 (direct)
(608) 257-5444 (fax)
csinderbrand@axley.com
F:\EAFDATA\13687\63487\00620069.DOC