FROM ONTARIO

PROPERTY VALUES BLOWN AWAY: CHATHAM LAWYER

READ THE ENTIRE STORY AT THE SOURCE: Simcoe Reformer, www.simcoe.com

May 30, 2011

By DANIEL PEARCE

“My home has lost 100% of its value,” Houghton-area resident Stephana Johnston told the meeting. “I can’t sleep in my home.”

PORT ROWAN — Wind turbines are hurting the economies of Ontario municipalities by driving down waterfront property values and effectively keeping new industry away, says a Chatham-area lawyer involved in the fight against wind power.

Turbines have become so unpopular people no longer buy homes “if they see one anywhere within 360 degrees,” said Douglas Desmond of Ridgetown, Ont.

This results in diving property values, which in turn leads to lower assessments and fewer property tax dollars collected, Desmond told a session organized by the group Carolinian Canada Coalition.

As well, communities such as Chatham-Kent — which saw its first turbines go up last fall — won’t have the stock of luxury waterfront homes needed “ to court senior management” of companies looking for locations for their factories and offices, he added.

“We need the residential development along our shorelines for the tax base,” Desmond said. “ You can really gouge lakeshore people.

“The economic impact (of the turbines) will extend far into the economy of Chatham-Kent.”

Desmond was speaking to a group of conservationists gathered at the Legion here for an afternoon information session.

Opposition to turbines has been growing across Ontario. Residents in communities that host them — including the west end of Norfolk County — say they are suffering from a myriad of health problems caused by the towers’ swirling blades, such as headaches and sleeplessness.

Some say they have had to move out of their homes completely.

The average drop in property values for homes near turbines is 20-40%, said Desmond, who lives with turbines close to his farm.

“My home has lost 100% of its value,” Houghton-area resident Stephana Johnston told the meeting. “I can’t sleep in my home.”

Stricter regulations for new wind turbine projects could be on the way, however, Desmond said.

An Environmental Review Tribunal hearing held this spring in Chatham could call for a lengthening of the mandatory 550-metre setback between homes and turbines to 1,500-2,000 metres, he told the meeting. Many of the world’s top experts took part in the hearing, Desmond said. “It’ll be an extremely important decision, whatever the tribunal decides . . . They are waiting all over the world for this decision.”

Chatham-Kent now has 203 turbines but plans call for another 430, he said.

Since the first ones went up last fall, complaints from residents have been “coming in fast and furious,” said Desmond. Town halls are handcuffed by the Green Energy Act, which has allows the province to locate wind and solar projects wherever they want without the say-so of local government, the meeting was reminded.

Desmond called for municipalities to band together and demand the province stop excluding them from the planning process for wind and solar developments.

WIND DEVELOPERS SNAP UP HURON TOWNSHIP HOMES

READ FULL ARTICLE AT THE SOURCE: The Kincardine Independent, www.independent.on.ca

May 4 2011

By Barb McKay

“People call me and ask, ‘What should I do?’” he said. “I say sell and leave now before you lose the value of your home.”

Four homes affected by the Ripley Wind Project have been purchased by wind energy developers, and are slated to be put back on the market.

One property on Concession 2, another on Concession 4 and two on Concession 6 in Huron Township were purchased by Suncor/Acciona, which developed the 76 megawatt wind power project, March 16. Land transfer documents were obtained by HALT (Huron-Kinloss Against Lakeside Turbines) president Mac Serra. The documents state that Alejandro Salvador Armendariz, manager of Acciona Wind Energy and Christina Ellerbeck, manager of marketing and business development for Suncor, acted on behalf of the purchaser, a numbered company – 2270573 Ontario Inc.

“The idea was to buy them and remarket them,” said Paul Austin, community relations officer for Acciona Wind Energy.

Austin said the company went through a period of consultation and testing of the properties with the Grey Bruce Health Unit and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment.

“No link between the wind power project and the health concerns of the residents was discovered,” he said.

However, the residents of the properties continued to insist that their health was being impacted, said Austin.

“It was agreed that the only solution that could be reached was to purchase the properties,” he said. “It was in the best interest of the homeowners, the developers and the community to purchase the homes at fair market value. It was a mutual agreement.”

Austin said the purchase of the properties demonstrates Suncor and Acciona’s commitment to work with residents and the community.

Huron-Kinloss mayor Mitch Twolan said Suncor had informed him of the sales prior to the land transfers, and told him they would be back on the market, but he wasn’t given a reason as to why they were being purchased.

“It makes you very curious,” he said, adding that some residents feel they have no choice but to sell their homes.

David Colling, a Ripley-area resident and citizen member on the Inter-Municipal Wind Turbine Working Group, said he will be interested to see at what price the homes are listed at when they go back on the market. He said he has received a number of phone calls from residents living in areas where wind projects are slated to be developed.

“People call me and ask, ‘What should I do?’” he said. “I say sell and leave now before you lose the value of your home.”

Austin said full disclosure will be provided for why the homes were purchased when they are go up for sale.

“We want to be as transparent as possible about the process,” he said.

Second Story:

COUNTY LOWERS TURBINE SETBACKS TO ONE MILE

READ FULL ARTICLE AT THE SOURCE: East Oregonian, www.eastoregonian.com

4 May 2011

By SAMANTHA TIPLER,

Commissioners took another look at the rules for how to set up wind farms in Umatilla County. This latest round of changes lowered the wind turbine setback from two miles to one.

Commissioners held a four-and-a-half hour workshop Tuesday, including in the talks planning commission member Clinton Reeder, Helix-area wheat farmer Jeff Newtson and Ed Chesnut, a member of the Milton-Freewater City Council, the Walla Walla Basin Watershed Council and Blue Mountain Alliance, the group working to keep wind turbines out of the Blue Mountains.

Setbacks, the distance between a turbine and a town, house or road, has always been a sore issue.

Previously the planning commission had approved and suggested to commissioners two-mile setbacks.

The latest draft of wind rules commissioners reviewed Tuesday listed one mile from an unincorporated community, one mile from a home outside a wind project boundary and a half mile from inside the boundary. For cities, it stated, “setbacks from tower to the city urban growth boundary considered if requested by a city governing body.”

Chesnut said if that went through, Milton-Freewater would try for its maximum: a six-mile setback for turbines people can’t see and 15 miles for those people can see.

Newtson bristled at that, noting 15 miles is almost to Athena, the next town south of Milton-Freewater.

“That seems to be a real slap in the face to the property owners,” he said.

Chesnut acknowledged they had opposite views on setbacks.

“He’s afraid of it because it might be so large,” Chesnut said. “The city’s afraid of it because it might be zero.”

Notes on the rules said any city setback would be a recommendation for the county, and not mandatory.

“We’re pretty uncomfortable with a situation where we can request a setback, but we may not get any of it,” Chesnut said.

Newtson wanted better reasoning for setbacks. He wanted scientific reasons and evidence to back it up why the county should pick two miles or one mile or less. He suggested using decibel levels to determine the distance.

“I’m trying to use science more than this arbitrary numbers going around,” he said.

Chesnut said there were more concerns than sound.

“Visibility, health, property values,” he said. “All those things roll together. … They are inextricable in that you only have one way to handle the effects of a 500-foot tall machine: How far away is it?”

Commissioners mostly listened to discussions, making notes of more potential changes to the current draft of the laws.

They plan to meet again on Thursday, May 12, for the next land use hearing. It will start at 9 a.m. at the Justice Center Media Room, 4700 N.W. Pioneer Place, Pendleton.

Third Story

WINDFALL BY LAURA ISRAEL

Carl F Gauze, www.ink19.com

Grow up in the country, and you’re used to bad smells and dust and independent streaks a mile wide. Grow up in the city, and land that looks like Hobbiton should never change, at least not after you plunk down a stack of Franklins on a few acres with a view.

But when the Green Energy wagon pulls up and offers to rent your ungrazable ridgeline, you might change your stance. In tiny Meredith, New York, wind energy splits a town in two, and the glossy public relations handouts turn into 40-story behemoths that emit gut-wrenching noise, interrupt the sun, and kill bats.

Like the coal companies of a century ago, wind energy companies get unsophisticated farmers to sign long-term leases for a small stack of cash and huge future headaches. The contracts are protected by confidentiality agreements; the town’s people are effectively divided and unable to negotiate a fair deal for themselves. And when a windmill catches fire or throws huge chunks of ice a mile, there’s not much you can do except move away.

Israel takes her time telling the story of this blindsided small town. With verdant hills, cute cows and a tilt shift lens, the Catskills natural beauty slows down the story telling. We learn one bad thing about wind power every ten minutes or so as the locals give interviews that range from smug and self-righteous to cranky and pedantic.

Clearly, these are good people who have entered into lopsided agreements, and the companies building these towers are sucking up tax breaks without providing real benefits to anyone but their investors. Still, this is a depressed area, the hundreds of dairy farmers a generation ago are now replaced by a handful of plow their niche fields.

Becoming an industrial wind farm may not be any more attractive than having a coal mine move in, but it’s the only economic development available beyond refugees from New York City moving up to restore drafty farm houses.

What does Israel conclude? Beware, you small towns, this could happen to you! Just because someone stamps the new word “green” on something, it might not be any better than that old word “brown.”

This film was screened at the 2011 Florida Film Festival: www.floridafilmfestival.com

Next Story

ISLANDERS CLAIM TURBINES DEVALUE HOMES

READ FULL ARTICL AT THE SOURCE:The Whig-Standard, www.thewhig.com

May 4, 2011

By Paul Schliesmann

A potentially precedent-setting tax assessment hearing began on Wolfe Island on Wednesday for a couple claiming that noise and lights from nearby wind turbines have lowered their property value.

Lawyers from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and the Township of Frontenac Islands are opposing the claim made by islanders Ed and Gail Kenney.

The hearing, crammed into the tiny municipal township building, attracted opponents of wind farms that are being planned for Amherst Island and Cape Vincent, N.Y.

They believe the Kenneys’ case could change the course of future wind farm developments on both sides of the border.

“MPAC and the township have spent an awful lot of money on this for it not to be a precedent-setting case,” said Janet Grace a real estate agent who leads the Association for the Protection of Amherst Island.

“It’s not so much how much your house is de-valued. It’s that you can’t sell it.”

[rest of article available at source]

Next Story

IPC THREATENS TO SUE GREY HIGHLANDS

READ FULL ARTICLE AT THE SOURCE: www.simcoe.com

MAY 3, 2011

By Chris Fell

“This is not community consultation. This is bullying of the municipality. It’s forcing this upon people that don’t want it,”

GREY HIGHLANDS – International Power Canada is threatening to sue the Municipality of Grey Highlands for delaying the building permits for its industrial wind turbine project.

IPC Vice-President David Timm spoke to Grey Highlands council at its regular meeting held on Friday morning (April 29).

Timm told council that IPC has done a lot of work on its turbine project and that the delays by the municipality are threatening to cost the company a lot of money. IPC wants to build 11 industrial wind turbines as part of its Plateau Wind Power project.

“We call upon the mayor and council to cease its attempts to frustrate the issuance of these permits and to allow its officials to process our applications in accordance with applicable law,” said Timm. “If the permits are not issued promptly we will be forced to seek relief through the courts,” he said, adding that IPC would seek damages from the municipality.

IPC is objecting to the Municipality of Grey Highlands’ recent move to put in place whopping increases for the costs of building permits for industrial wind turbines. Grey Highlands council recently passed a bylaw to increase the permit fee from $9,000 per turbine to $35,000 per turbine, plus $100,000 as a performance bond per turbine.

Grey Highlands will also hold a public meeting on May 9 to consider a major hike in the turbine entrance permit fee and related securities.

Timm said IPC applied for its permits in June 7, 2010 and the company believes its project is not subject to the new fee schedule recently adopted by the municipality.

“My comments today are intended to express our frustration and serious concern with respect to the actions that council has taken to prevent the issuance of building and entrance permits for the construction of the Plateau project,” he said. “We have consistently sought to work with the municipality by responding positively to council’s requests only to have further impediments placed in our way. When we acquired this project from Chinodin Wind there was no indication that the municipality did not want wind power development,” said Timm.

IPC, Timm said, has consistently sought to follow the Grey Highlands planning requirements for the project – even though the company is not required to do so under the Green Energy Act. He also pointed out that IPC negotiated a generous road use agreement only to see it rejected by council.

“The costs of these delays are now very significant and will begin to rise exponentially with the arrival of the wind turbines in June/July,” said Timm. “These exorbitant new fees and related actions seem to us to be very much targeted at frustrating the Plateau project,” he said.

Members of council did not respond to the Timm’s presentation. Later in the meeting council did go in-camera to receive information from its lawyer about the wind turbine issue.

“The municipality doesn’t have any response at this time to the accusations,” CAO Dan Best said during a brief interview during a break in the meeting.

Local resident Lorrie Gillis attended the meeting and watched the presentation from IPC.

“This is not community consultation. This is bullying of the municipality. It’s forcing this upon people that don’t want it,” said Gillis.

Ripley Wind Project company buys out four homes

SOURCE Kincardine News

By Troy Patterson

Four homes within the 38-turbine, 76-megawatt Ripley Wind Power Project have been purchased by owners Suncor and Acciona Energy, as a solution to resolve the ongoing issues some residents within the project have been dealing with since it was built in 2007.

Acciona's Paul Austin said the companies have worked with the Ripley stakeholders for some time, determining "it was it the best interest of the project, the companies and the community to purchase the homes."

Austin said by offering the residents "market value" for their homes, it would allow them to move so the companies could resell the homes to other interested parties.

"We take the concerns of all our stakeholders seriously," said Austin, adding they've been working with local stakeholders to answer questions and understand their concerns since the project began. "After a prolonged period of consultation that involved a number of third-party studies and tests, it was agreed upon that the only solution that could meet the needs of this small group of local landowners was to purchase their homes."

The final agreement was reached on March 16, after the prices were determined by independent appraisers.

Local anti-wind power group Huron-Kinloss Against Lakeside Turbines (HALT) jumped on the information after they were provided documents they provided to The Kincardine News that linked the sales to numbered companies, one owned by a manager with Suncor and the other a manager for Acciona.

In a HALT media release, president Mac Serra said although the homeowners have been gagged by the sale process, they know the families of the four homes sold, out of five that were dealing with health issues, have been fighting the companies for years, "over their inability to lead normal lives in their own homes caused by the Ripley Wind Power Project."

"If there are no health effects from industrial wind turbines as their proponents claim, then why would wind plant operators buy the homes of wind victims," said Serra.

In response to the claims the buy-out was linked to health issues caused by wind turbines, Austin said, "No link between the operation of our Ripley Wind Power Project and the health concerns of our neighbours could be discovered, and so no damages were awarded or necessary."

Serra said this is a case where the "victims" of this process are unable to speak, "which leaves the public in the dark over the true extent of the impact caused by industrial wind."

"There are over 100 families across Ontario who claim their health is negatively affected by wind development," he continued. "Many more cannot speak due to confidentiality agreements signed with the wind companies or simply won't speak up, not wanting to upset their neighbours."

HALT targeted Ontario's Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and Huron-Bruce MPP Carol Mitchell for "ignoring" health concerns raised by constituents surrounding wind projects and the opinion of Grey Bruce Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Hazel Lynn, "preferring to quote Ontario's Chief Medical Officer of Health's literature review" that claims there is no link between health issues and turbines.

Dr. Lynn's data estimates between 10-15% of people living near turbines in Grey-Bruce have said their health has been affected, he said.

With the knowledge of the buy-out, HALT is "calling for a full moratorium on all industrial wind development until an independent epidemiological study has been completed." The group is one of 57 citizens groups represented by the provincial anti-wind group, Wind Concerns Ontario.

The Ripley-area residents had approached municipal council in 2009 about a rash of health problems, "including high blood pressure, headaches, sleep disturbances, the sensation of bugs crawling on the skin, humming in the head, non-stop ringing in the ears and heart palpitations," they believed were caused by their proximity to the project.

It was also reported that wind developers had paid for the homeowners to stay in local hotels while they were working through the consultation process dealing with the complaints.

There are currently land options being sought within the Municipality of Kincardine by Samsung Renewable Energy Inc. in Bruce Twp., Acciona Energy is working on a 80MW wind project outside Armow in Kincardine Twp. Leader Resources Services Inc. is planning a 200MW project between Saugeen Shores and the Municipality of Kincardine, while International Power Inc.'s 125MW wind power project is planned near the lake shore in the Township of Huron-Kinloss.



FOUR OF RIPLEY-FIVE HOMES BOUGHT OUT BY WIND DEVELOPERS

SOURCE windconcernsontario.wordpress.com

April 27, 2011

Suncor and Acciona executives quietly bought out residents experiencing health problems.

“If there are no health effects from Industrial Wind Turbines as their proponents claim, then why would wind plant operators buy the homes of wind victims?”.

This is the question being asked by HALT (Huron-Kinloss Against Lakeside Turbines) President Mac Serra. The group recently discovered the sale of four of the five properties previously owned by the families that have been fighting Suncor and Acciona over their inability to lead normal lives in their own homes caused by the Ripley Wind Power Project.

The homes were purchased by 2270573 Ontario Inc. One director for this company listed on the transfer is a manager for Suncor and the other a manager for Acciona.

The victims themselves cannot speak, silenced by a process which leaves the public in the dark over the true extent of the impact caused by industrial wind. “There are over 100 families across Ontario who claim their health is negatively affected by wind development. Many more cannot speak due to confidentiality agreements signed with the wind companies or simply won’t speak up, not wanting to upset their neighbours” said Mac. “MPP Carol Mitchel continues to ignore the health concerns of her constituents and the concerns raised by Dr. Hazel Lynn, Medical Officer of Health for the Grey Bruce Health Unit, preferring to quote Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health’s literature review.” Dr. Hazel Lynn estimates that between 10% and 15% of people living near turbines in her area say their health has been affected.

The group is calling for a full moratorium on all industrial wind development until an independent epidemiological study has been completed. HALT is one of 57 grassroots citizen’s groups across Ontario represented by Wind Concerns Ontario.



OSHA TO FINE LM WIND POWER $136,500

SOURCE Grand Forks Herald, www.grandforksherald.com

April 25 2011

Tu-Uyen Tran,

In two days in October, inside of wind-turbine blade No. 106, the amount of a hazardous substance called styrene reached 1,889 parts per million and then 2,195 parts per million, triggering air-quality alarms at LM Wind Power in Grand Forks.

Workers were inside the confines of the giant blade, but a supervisor failed to get them out, according to the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Styrene is a hazardous chemical used in fiberglass production and the maximum exposure OSHA allows is 600 parts per million, or ppm.

The October incident and several others throughout August and September at LM’s plant led to proposed fines totaling $136,500, which the agency announced Monday.

LM did not respond Monday to a message seeking comment.

“We’re working with the company,” said Tom Deutscher, area director for OSHA’s Bismarck office. “In the past they’ve really expressed a desire to work with us.”

The latest proposed fines, which LM can challenge, follows another set of proposed fines totaling $92,000 for various incidents that contributed to the death of a worker in July. LM is challenging that fine.

The Denmark-based company employs about 440 in Grand Forks.

Repeat offense

OSHA cited LM with four “serious” violations, with penalties totaling $28,000; two “willful” violations, with penalties totaling $70,000; and five “repeat” violations, with penalties totaling $38,500.

In one violation, OSHA said LM workers did not have proper protective equipment for working with styrene. “Severe chemical burns to the body were reported to the employer,” the agency said.

Excessive exposure to styrene can affect the central nervous system, according to the agency’s website, leading to “complaints of headache, fatigue, dizziness, confusion, drowsiness, malaise, difficulty in concentrating and a feeling of intoxication.” It is also considered a potential human carcinogen.

Maximum exposure

The maximum exposure at 600 ppm is only for a short period of time, Deutscher said. For an eight-hour shift, it’s about 100 ppm.

In another violation, OSHA said LM allowed one worker to be exposed to 277 ppm and another to be exposed to 275 ppm during their entire shifts.

Compounding LM’s violations is the allegation by OSHA that it knew there were problems but did nothing, which Deutscher said led to the willful violations.

The agency cited the fact that LM had air-quality readings for blade No. 106 and blade No. 1790, which reached 1,945 and 995 ppm, but didn’t get workers out from inside the blades as safety rules require.

LM was last cited for such violations in April 2008, OSHA said. Agency records indicate LM paid $17,400 in fines for 10 serious violations and one repeat violation. Those fines were reduced from $29,000 after the company worked with OSHA.

NEXT STORY

CROWDED WIND POWER HEARINGS HIGHLIGHT DIVISION

SOURCE Kennebec Journal, www.kjonline.com

April 26 2011

By Tux Turkel

AUGUSTA — First, Steve Bennett passed out pictures, which showed the wind turbine tower looming over his house in Freedom.

Then, he told the Legislature’s Energy, Utilities and Technology Committee about the incessant noise, and the flickering light from rotating blades that enters his window and makes the room appear to be moving.

Anyone who says the intrusions from the Beaver Ridge wind farm don’t lower the value of his home “is delusional,” he said.

Bennett made his comments while testifying Monday on one of 13 bills meant to modify recent state policies that encourage wind power. Drafted by opponents of commercial wind energy, they represent a concerted effort to dilute the substance of a sweeping law passed three years ago to expedite wind energy development in Maine.

Monday was the first of two days of public hearings on the bills, which include a proposed moratorium on new wind power projects, a call to collect information on health effects, and an effort to amend the Maine Wind Energy Act, which was passed without opposition in the Legislature in 2008.

The crowd of people who waited to testify spilled out of the committee room, with both supporters and opponents lining up for the day-long session.

Bennett testified on a bill that would make developers compensate property owners within three miles of turbines for any loss in property value.

Opponents of the bills, largely representing the wind power industry, told the committee that various studies have failed to show that wind energy lowers property values.

Jeremy Payne, executive director of the Maine Renewable Energy Association, pointed to language in the bill requiring a developer to pay the asking price for a home that hasn’t sold within six months. Homes routinely sit on the market longer than that for reasons that have nothing to do with wind power, he noted.

The two sides’ failure to agree even on wind farms’ effect on property values highlights the gulf between those who see wind as an economic opportunity and an energy imperative and those who see it destroying Maine’s forested highlands for little good.

In the weeks ahead, lawmakers must decide whether to begin tinkering with parts of the Wind Energy Act or defer to a process in the law that requires a comprehensive review in 2013. One option, suggested by environmental groups, is to do that review sooner.

The law has frustrated residents, many of them in rural communities in northern Maine and the western mountains, who don’t want scenic ridges lined with 300-foot-tall towers and swirling blades. They have been largely unsuccessful in court challenges, and hope that the new, Republican-controlled Legislature will be more sympathetic to local control and property rights.

Wind opponents have found an unlikely ally in Rep. Larry Dunphy, R-North Anson, a paper mill supervisor who serves on the energy committee. He is sponsoring or co-sponsoring eight of the 13 bills.

A first-time legislator, Dunphy said he didn’t have a strong feeling about wind power until he started hearing from residents in his district who felt threatened by various project proposals in western Maine. He slowly came to the view that the industry provides relatively few jobs and threatens the region’s long-term potential for tourism.

“Once we build those roads and transmission lines and change the face of the mountains, it’s done,” he said.

On Monday, wind power supporters testified that the projects built to date in Maine take up only a tiny land area, analogous to a playing card on a football field. And they zeroed in on a top priority of Republicans including Gov. Paul LePage: the economy.

LePage’s position was represented in testimony by Ken Fletcher, a former Republican lawmaker who served on the committee and was recently appointed director of the state’s energy office. Fletcher will testify over the next two days that the governor opposes all 13 bills.

Payne, citing a recent study, said the wind power industry has invested nearly $1 billion since 2004, of which $378 million has been spent in-state to erect 195 turbines. More than 600 jobs were created in 2008 and 2009, during the peak of the recession.

Most of the turbines were put up by Reed & Reed Inc. of Woolwich. The company’s president, Jack Parker, told the committee that wind power has transformed his business. Any changes to the state law will send a signal to the industry that Maine doesn’t want the capital or the jobs, he said.

“Uncertainty is the enemy of investment,” Parker said.

Parker was accompanied in the committee room by construction workers wearing fluorescent yellow vests. They and other workers provided a show of support for the industry.

Their presence was offset by scores of residents, including sporting camp owners and those who now enjoy pristine, mountain views, who feel they are victims of Maine’s aggressive wind energy policies.

Sally and David Wiley, who have a home near the Fox Islands Wind Project on Vinalhaven, said they reluctantly have decided to sell their coveside house, because of noise from two nearby turbines.

The compensation law would allow residents who are afflicted by wind energy to move and recover the lost value of their properties, David Wiley said. “It’s simply the right thing to do.”

NEXT STORY

FICKLE WINDS, INTERMITTENT SUNSHINE START TO STRESS U.S. POWER SYSTEM

SOURCE: ClimateWire, www.nytimes.com

April 25, 2011

By Peter Behr

The growth of U.S. wind power has begun to create operating challenges for nuclear and coal plants that must be ramped up and down as wind speeds vary, panelists at a Massachusetts Institute of Technology energy conference reported last week.

The MIT Energy Initiative symposium on integrating large-scale wind and solar power attracted executives of utility and transmission companies, senior government officials and academic researchers, whose comments were off the record. Some papers prepared for the conference were made public by their authors, and they define a growing challenge of matching the current U.S. mix of power plants with new requirements to respond quickly to changes in wind and solar resources.

“The power system needs more flexibility to handle the short-term effects of increasing levels of wind,” said Ignacio Pérez-Arriaga, a professor at Spain’s Comillas University and a visiting professor at MIT.

He and other speakers predicted the expansion of renewable power will continue as a clear option for reducing power plant carbon emissions. Nearly half of global electricity supply will have to come from renewable sources if world carbon dioxide emissions are to be cut to half of current levels by 2050, according to the International Energy Agency, he noted.

But utility regulation has not adapted to a future of high renewables, he warned. And a high penetration of wind and solar generation is likely to make wholesale electricity prices more volatile. These and other potentially disruptive issues “raise concerns about attracting sufficient investment in … flexible plants” in competitive power markets, he said.

A paper by the Brattle Group says the expansion of renewable energy requires “more generation … that can quickly ramp up and down, possibly with short start-up times and minimal cool-down times.” Whether those needs for more cycling and peaking energy can be met by existing generators is not clear and must be given detailed study, the Brattle Group paper says.

Regulation, finance and operational changes needed

In the United States, the drop in demand for power that began with the recession in 2008 has left spare generation capacity that can be used to balance power supply to demand in this decade. But regulation, capital investment policies and operating practices all must change to maximize that potential, speakers said.

And right now, the difference in the peak demand for daytime power is growing in the United States, adding to the need for a more flexible system. Grid operators must plan for a future worst-case scenario of several consecutive days with very low wind and solar power coinciding with very high summer power demand, Pérez-Arriaga said. This is a key challenge in designing the long-term generation mix.

A major focus of the April 20 symposium was the impact of more frequent start-stop cycling of coal-fired generators, as they are called on to balance peaks and valleys in wind output.

Putting coal plants on a more rapid cycling schedule exposes valves, piping and other components to more extreme temperature shifts and potentially damaging changes in steam operation chemistry, said Steve Hesler, a program manager at the Electric Power Research Institute, in a conference paper. These can accelerate wear and tear and induce corrosion and stress, raising the risks of cracking and failure of metals and welds, he noted.

Hesler said that increased cycling of coal plants is already evident, resulting from the recession-caused drop in power demand, lower natural gas prices, and expansion of renewable generation. The bulk of the balancing services from U.S. coal plants is being met by smaller units built before 1970 that are typically run at relatively low capacities, rather than newer and larger coal plants whose owners run them as much possible to supply baseload power, Hesler wrote.

The smaller, older plants are most at risk from U.S. EPA regulation and competition from natural gas generation that currently benefits from low gas prices. As these older coal plants are retired, current flexibility of the generation fleet is likely to suffer, speakers said. “We’re running out of flexible coal units,” one participant said. “The newer plants aren’t built well enough to do load following” in response to variations in renewable energy output.

“I can’t imagine owners of coal plants … making significant capital investments around ramping,” said another participant.

Who pays for needed adjustments?

Both large coal units and nuclear plants are intended to be run full time, and the utility industry has spent decades training operators to do that. If they now are required to run the plants at varying outputs to respond to ups and downs in renewable energy, the risk of human error may rise, one conference participant said. “I’m sure they’ll get there, but the human factor is not be underestimated.”

Another participant said that manufacturers have designs for faster-responding gas-fired generators that would be better suited to handle the temperature and pressure stresses of ramping operations. But the industry has not seen utilities “rushing to the door” to purchase more adaptable but more expensive generators. “It’s an economic decision.”

The regulation of the U.S. electric power industry is still aimed at securing power at the lowest cost. But the changes in store for the power sector won’t come for free, one speaker said. “There is no way we can accomplish this at a lower cost. So the question is, who pays?”

Officials of the American Wind Energy Association sparred with a representative of the Bentek Energy consulting firm, who presented a new analysis, “The Wind Energy Paradox.” It asserts that increased wind energy output forces coal generation into inefficient start-stop operations that increase emissions of nitrogen- and sulfur-oxide pollutants.

To the extent that wind power will be backed up by gas-fired generators rather than coal, the gains in carbon emission reductions from wind are diminished, the Bentek report says.

The paper says that the increase in pollutant emissions caused by frequent cycling of coal- and gas-fired generation undermines the wind industry’s claims about the emission reduction benefits from renewables. “It’s not a very cost effective way” of saving carbon, SOx and NOx, the sulfur and nitrogen oxide pollutants, the report says.

AWEA responded via email, “There are more than two dozen different peer-reviewed wind integration studies from the U.S. and Europe, mostly by utilities. They show that the U.S. can accommodate a lot more renewable generation than we have today, at relatively modest integration costs and with significant emissions reductions.”

“Similarly, their [Bentek's] model only looks at hourly snapshots and would therefore exclude the vast majority of the emissions savings caused when wind energy causes emitting sources to turn off for an extended period of time,” AWEA said.

“The Bentek report overstates coal cycling costs and impacts by extrapolating from an extreme case of ramping a generator down from 100 to 40 percent of capacity in an hour which almost never happens. While it is fair to incorporate coal ramping costs and impacts, the study greatly overstates those impacts and does not reflect the way generators are committed and dispatched by grid operators,” AWEA said.

‘Fractured decisions’ expected from states and regions

The conference concluded with the question of whether the patchwork of federal and state regulation and the stalemate over national climate and transmission policies in Congress would help or hinder a transition to more renewable power.

“Considerable progress” is being made by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, state regulators, regional transmission organizations and utilities in planning to accommodate more renewable power, tuning market incentives to create a more flexible system, and fairly allocating costs for this transition, the Brattle Group report says.

The reality is that states and regions will have the most to say about this process. “We do not see any grand, unifying theory of cost allocation for the costs of renewable variability, nor do the institutional differences, legacy generation, or indigenous resources across regions of the U.S. … lend themselves to uniform solutions,” the report says.

“While the road ahead may be contentious and laborious, there seems to be no technical or economic reason why a well-functioning regulatory system cannot find its way to a sustainable, reliable and economical destination.”

Other conference participants were far less optimistic that a divided Congress and White House can rationalize climate and energy policies.

A larger, more sophisticated transmission network, including long-haul high-voltage direct-current lines, would expand the footprint for solar and wind generation, smoothing the daily and hourly variations in renewable energy output, speakers noted.

One industry executive said that many papers submitted to the conference assume that a stronger inter-regional transmission network would ease the integration of renewable power into the grid. With some exceptions, notably in Texas, that goal faces huge political and industry opposition, the speaker said.

“We have no right to that assumption in the U.S., and we shouldn’t make it. We should assume instead we will be making fractured decisions.”