SWEETWATER, Texas — Get ready, America, T. Boone Pickens is coming to your living room.
The legendary Texas oilman, corporate raider, shareholder-rights crusader, philanthropist and deep-pocketed moneyman for conservative politicians and causes, wants to drive the USA's political and economic agenda.
"We're paying $700 billion a year for foreign oil. It's breaking us as a nation, and I want to elevate that question to the presidential debate, to make it the No. 1 issue of the campaign this year," Pickens says.
Today, Pickens will take the wraps off what he's calling the Pickens Plan for cutting the USA's demand for foreign oil by more than a third in less than a decade. To promote it, he is bankrolling what his aides say will be the biggest public policy ad campaign ever. The website, www.pickensplan.com, goes live today.
Jay Rosser, Pickens' ever-present public relations man, promises that Pickens' face will be seen on Americans' televisions this fall almost as frequently as John McCain's and Barack Obama's.
(Click to read entire article)
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
CNBC.com Article: Oil Price Not Driven by Speculation: Pickens
DATE: July 8, 2008
TO: Boone Pickens on CNBC's Squawkbox
SUBJECT: Industrial Wind development in the United States
FROM: Jim Sawicki
jim@flmm.net
Canandaigua, NY
1) Please explain how industrial wind power will reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil when most of the oil is used for transportation vehicles including personal, freight, airlines, recreational, business, etc…
2) What are your thoughts on all the proposed United States industrial wind development outside the Texas to Canada corridor, especially the Northeast?
3) Concerning health and safety issues, what are your minimum setback recommendations? What recourse do landowners have if noise levels, including subsonic vibrations cause health problems? How will you ensure that stray electricity does no harm to humans or livestock? What is your plan to protect nearby homes and businesses from increased lightning strikes due to the incredible height of the industrial turbines?
4) What is your backup plan for electricity generation when the wind does not blow?
5) How will people close to these industrial machines be compensated when their property values fall and the quality of a quiet rural life they chose is compromised?
6) In your plan, you mention constructing a 4000MW facility. Is it correct to assume this 4000MW figure is RATED CAPACITY? If so, what are true net projections for actual electricity generation of your development? In your “corridor”, do you expect to achieve ratings higher than the typical very poor averages of only 20% to 30% of rated capacity?
7) Do you now live or plan to live within close proximity of industrial wind turbines? If so, how close? If not, why?
8) What are your plans for geothermal?
Thank you, for your time, Boone.
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Sawicki
TO: Boone Pickens on CNBC's Squawkbox
SUBJECT: Industrial Wind development in the United States
FROM: Jim Sawicki
jim@flmm.net
Canandaigua, NY
1) Please explain how industrial wind power will reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil when most of the oil is used for transportation vehicles including personal, freight, airlines, recreational, business, etc…
2) What are your thoughts on all the proposed United States industrial wind development outside the Texas to Canada corridor, especially the Northeast?
3) Concerning health and safety issues, what are your minimum setback recommendations? What recourse do landowners have if noise levels, including subsonic vibrations cause health problems? How will you ensure that stray electricity does no harm to humans or livestock? What is your plan to protect nearby homes and businesses from increased lightning strikes due to the incredible height of the industrial turbines?
4) What is your backup plan for electricity generation when the wind does not blow?
5) How will people close to these industrial machines be compensated when their property values fall and the quality of a quiet rural life they chose is compromised?
6) In your plan, you mention constructing a 4000MW facility. Is it correct to assume this 4000MW figure is RATED CAPACITY? If so, what are true net projections for actual electricity generation of your development? In your “corridor”, do you expect to achieve ratings higher than the typical very poor averages of only 20% to 30% of rated capacity?
7) Do you now live or plan to live within close proximity of industrial wind turbines? If so, how close? If not, why?
8) What are your plans for geothermal?
Thank you, for your time, Boone.
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Sawicki
Monday, July 07, 2008
Hanover presents proposed WECS law
HANOVER - Town officials introduced a new local law to regulate the construction of wind energy conversion systems in Hanover.
At a recent Hanover Town Board meeting, a public hearing was held for an updated local law regulating WECS - to replace the former local law from 2006 - in anticipation of the upcoming Ball Hill Windpark joint project with the town of Villenova through Noble Power.
The proposed project will be situated in the southern end of Hanover and the northern end of Villenova. An estimated 67 turbines are expected to be erected, producing 100.5 mega-watts, or enough electricity to power 40,000 to 50,000 homes each year. Of the 67 turbines, 11 will be situated on private property within Hanover, in addition to collection lines and a collection station.
According to the local law, the town board is designated as the sole permitting authority, and states "no wind energy conversion system shall be sited, located, constructed, erected or modified without the issuance of a special-use permit."
Application for a permit will be a two-step process, town attorney Jeffrey Passafaro explained. Applicants must first designate boundaries for a wind overlay zone.
A wind overlay zone is defined by the local law as "a district or zone which encompasses one or more underlying zones and that establishes requirements for wind energy facilities."
"The most important consideration is that the town is amending its local law to provide that no wind energy facilities will be permitted outside of a wind overlay zone," Passafaro said, "which is a zone to be created only upon application by the town board."
If the proposed wind overlay zone is approved by the town board, he explained, individuals must then make application for the actual wind energy facilities.
Applications, permits and inspection fees for WECS will be established by the town board. However, no amount was listed in the law.
Supervisor Katherine Tampio explained the new law outlines provisions for an escrow account to ensure all fees related to potential projects are covered by applicants.
"Any legal fees, consultant fees, or engineering fees that are incurred by the town of Hanover will be paid by the wind power applicant," she said. "It's not going to be at town expense."
In addition, the law requires all costs associated with decommissioning wind energy facilities to be paid by the applicant. Commercial WECS not generating energy for a period of one year must be removed, with the site restored to as natural condition as possible, and non-commercial WECS not in use for 12 successive months will be dismantled and removed at the owner's expense.
Revisions were also made to the height limit of commercial towers, which was extended to the statutory limit of 420 feet. Non-commercial towers are limited to 75 feet, or 120 feet including turbine and blades if the tower is located on a parcel of 10 or more acres.
Setback revisions require all commercial WECS to be 500 feet from the nearest property line, right-of-way, easement, power line, public road, as well as 500 feet from gas wells, and gas and electric distribution lines. They must be 1,000 feet from the nearest residential dwelling, school, church or historical structure existing at the time of application, and 100 feet from state-identified wetlands.
Non-commercial WECS must not be located closer than one and a half times the total height of the structure to any property line.
The law also set the noise limit at 50 decibels for both commercial and non-commercial WECS as measured from the nearest residences.
Failure to meet the requirements of a special-use permit will result in an applicants permit being revoked and order for wind energy facilities to be removed within 120 days of notification.
With the revised law, the town also leaves open the potential to receive revenue through a host community or PILOT agreements since WECS are typically tax exempt.
Kevin O'Connell suggested any money received be used to ease the tax burden of town residents.
"I realize the money received from this type of project could be minimal," he said, "but I would like to see these funds earmarked by the town board for property tax relief."
Mike Hall agreed and asked what town officials are planning to do with any revenue resulting from the wind farm project, and who will decide how the money will be used.
Tampio said the town board will ultimately decide how the money is expended, but has made no decisions since town officials don't know how much the town will receive yet. However, she said offering property tax relief to town residents will be a prime consideration.
The board tabled a motion to adopt the new WECS law in order to review and consider comments received from the Chautauqua County Planning Department and special council for a private developer. Copies of the WECS law are available at the town hall.
At a recent Hanover Town Board meeting, a public hearing was held for an updated local law regulating WECS - to replace the former local law from 2006 - in anticipation of the upcoming Ball Hill Windpark joint project with the town of Villenova through Noble Power.
The proposed project will be situated in the southern end of Hanover and the northern end of Villenova. An estimated 67 turbines are expected to be erected, producing 100.5 mega-watts, or enough electricity to power 40,000 to 50,000 homes each year. Of the 67 turbines, 11 will be situated on private property within Hanover, in addition to collection lines and a collection station.
According to the local law, the town board is designated as the sole permitting authority, and states "no wind energy conversion system shall be sited, located, constructed, erected or modified without the issuance of a special-use permit."
Application for a permit will be a two-step process, town attorney Jeffrey Passafaro explained. Applicants must first designate boundaries for a wind overlay zone.
A wind overlay zone is defined by the local law as "a district or zone which encompasses one or more underlying zones and that establishes requirements for wind energy facilities."
"The most important consideration is that the town is amending its local law to provide that no wind energy facilities will be permitted outside of a wind overlay zone," Passafaro said, "which is a zone to be created only upon application by the town board."
If the proposed wind overlay zone is approved by the town board, he explained, individuals must then make application for the actual wind energy facilities.
Applications, permits and inspection fees for WECS will be established by the town board. However, no amount was listed in the law.
Supervisor Katherine Tampio explained the new law outlines provisions for an escrow account to ensure all fees related to potential projects are covered by applicants.
"Any legal fees, consultant fees, or engineering fees that are incurred by the town of Hanover will be paid by the wind power applicant," she said. "It's not going to be at town expense."
In addition, the law requires all costs associated with decommissioning wind energy facilities to be paid by the applicant. Commercial WECS not generating energy for a period of one year must be removed, with the site restored to as natural condition as possible, and non-commercial WECS not in use for 12 successive months will be dismantled and removed at the owner's expense.
Revisions were also made to the height limit of commercial towers, which was extended to the statutory limit of 420 feet. Non-commercial towers are limited to 75 feet, or 120 feet including turbine and blades if the tower is located on a parcel of 10 or more acres.
Setback revisions require all commercial WECS to be 500 feet from the nearest property line, right-of-way, easement, power line, public road, as well as 500 feet from gas wells, and gas and electric distribution lines. They must be 1,000 feet from the nearest residential dwelling, school, church or historical structure existing at the time of application, and 100 feet from state-identified wetlands.
Non-commercial WECS must not be located closer than one and a half times the total height of the structure to any property line.
The law also set the noise limit at 50 decibels for both commercial and non-commercial WECS as measured from the nearest residences.
Failure to meet the requirements of a special-use permit will result in an applicants permit being revoked and order for wind energy facilities to be removed within 120 days of notification.
With the revised law, the town also leaves open the potential to receive revenue through a host community or PILOT agreements since WECS are typically tax exempt.
Kevin O'Connell suggested any money received be used to ease the tax burden of town residents.
"I realize the money received from this type of project could be minimal," he said, "but I would like to see these funds earmarked by the town board for property tax relief."
Mike Hall agreed and asked what town officials are planning to do with any revenue resulting from the wind farm project, and who will decide how the money will be used.
Tampio said the town board will ultimately decide how the money is expended, but has made no decisions since town officials don't know how much the town will receive yet. However, she said offering property tax relief to town residents will be a prime consideration.
The board tabled a motion to adopt the new WECS law in order to review and consider comments received from the Chautauqua County Planning Department and special council for a private developer. Copies of the WECS law are available at the town hall.
Wind turbine deal spins up controversy
The developer, in this case BQ Energy, must either pay taxes to municipalities and school districts or sign agreements to pay a sum in lieu of taxes, or negotiate separate payment schedules.
At issue is an earlier agreement between BQ Energy and the city that leaves the schools out of a 15-year payment plan. That still does not sit well with Paul Hashem, superintendent of schools at the time the deal was negotiated.
He felt, and still feels, the district was deliberately left out of negotiations when Lackawanna Mayor Norman Polanski signed the original Steel Winds deal.
The controversy began with the eight wind turbines occupying the grounds of the abandoned steel mill. Steel Winds I generates up to 20 megawatts of electric power and per the original agreement, signed Dec. 19, 2005, developer BQ Energy pays Lackawanna - the only benefactor of the agreement - $100,000 tax-free every year for 15 years.
(Click to read entire article)
At issue is an earlier agreement between BQ Energy and the city that leaves the schools out of a 15-year payment plan. That still does not sit well with Paul Hashem, superintendent of schools at the time the deal was negotiated.
He felt, and still feels, the district was deliberately left out of negotiations when Lackawanna Mayor Norman Polanski signed the original Steel Winds deal.
The controversy began with the eight wind turbines occupying the grounds of the abandoned steel mill. Steel Winds I generates up to 20 megawatts of electric power and per the original agreement, signed Dec. 19, 2005, developer BQ Energy pays Lackawanna - the only benefactor of the agreement - $100,000 tax-free every year for 15 years.
(Click to read entire article)
Friday, July 04, 2008
Wind farm is tied to merger OK
ALBANY -- Iberdrola SA says that if the Public Service Commission does not approve its $4.5 billion acquisition of Energy East Corp., it will look elsewhere to make the $2 billion in wind-farm investments it plans for New York.
"Then Iberdrola would not view New York as a state with an attractive regulatory environment in which to target future investment," the company said in filing Thursday with the PSC. "In that event, Iberdrola would seek to redirect its resources from New York to other locations."
Iberdrola's remarks are the latest -- and perhaps the last -- that it will make officially in the lengthy approval process that the transaction has gone through before the PSC, the state agency that regulates utility companies.
Energy East, based in Maine, is the parent company of Rochester Gas & Electric and New York State Electric & Gas, which collectively serve about 1.3 million customers in upstate New York.
The five governor-appointed members of the PSC must ultimately vote to approve or deny the deal. They are expected to vote at their August meeting at the earliest.
But before that occurs, the process involves a legal proceeding that plays out much like a trial, with evidence submitted by the companies and various interested parties such as the staff at the PSC, the Consumer Protection Board and a group of large industrial businesses known as multiple intervenors.
The latest brief filed by the multiple intervenors on Thursday said the five PSC commissioners should ignore Iberdrola's threat not to build wind farms in New York.
"Efforts to hold the possibility of future wind generation development 'hostage' to merger approval should be met with skepticism and accorded little or no weight," the companies wrote.
"Then Iberdrola would not view New York as a state with an attractive regulatory environment in which to target future investment," the company said in filing Thursday with the PSC. "In that event, Iberdrola would seek to redirect its resources from New York to other locations."
Iberdrola's remarks are the latest -- and perhaps the last -- that it will make officially in the lengthy approval process that the transaction has gone through before the PSC, the state agency that regulates utility companies.
Energy East, based in Maine, is the parent company of Rochester Gas & Electric and New York State Electric & Gas, which collectively serve about 1.3 million customers in upstate New York.
The five governor-appointed members of the PSC must ultimately vote to approve or deny the deal. They are expected to vote at their August meeting at the earliest.
But before that occurs, the process involves a legal proceeding that plays out much like a trial, with evidence submitted by the companies and various interested parties such as the staff at the PSC, the Consumer Protection Board and a group of large industrial businesses known as multiple intervenors.
The latest brief filed by the multiple intervenors on Thursday said the five PSC commissioners should ignore Iberdrola's threat not to build wind farms in New York.
"Efforts to hold the possibility of future wind generation development 'hostage' to merger approval should be met with skepticism and accorded little or no weight," the companies wrote.
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Iberdrola Energy East deal must not be approved - facts about industrial wind
PSC Commissioners:
PLEASE read the following why NYS needs to rethink the role of industrial wind. Why would the PSC approve the Iberdrola deal when NYS has less wind than in the UK? The Industrial Wind record in the EU needs to part of the review within the regulatory NYSPSC process. Common Sense, NYS wind pattern realities and wind turbine technology deficiencies are core elements that clearly demonstrate that the world largest wind developer is not a positive candidate for ownership and managerial control of the NYS electric utility market.
James Hall
PO Box 657
Naples, NY 14512
(585) 534-5581
Research: Wind power pricier, emits more CO2 than thought
'Windfarm output is never zero. Sometimes it's less'
Fresh contenders have entered the UK wind power debate, as a turbines expert funded by the Renewable Energy Foundation publishes an investigation into a hotly-disputed subject - the variability in output to be expected of a large UK windfarm base.
In a just-released article for the journal Energy Policy, titled Will British weather provide reliable electricity?, consulting engineer Jim Oswald and his co-authors model the output to be expected from a large, 25+ gigawatt UK windfarm collection of the type the government says it would like to see in service by 2020. Wind is generally seen as the renewable technology best suited to the UK climate, and so it forms the bulk of most renewables plans for Blighty.
One of the most frequent criticisms levelled at wind power is variability. That is, when the wind drops (or blows too hard) the windmills stop spinning and you get no power. To begin with, Oswald simulates the output rises and falls that might result from a lot of windfarms distributed around the UK by using Met Office archived data from different points up and down the land. Many wind advocates have argued that with enough windfarms, widely enough distributed, you would get more reliable power output as some windmills would always have wind.
Oswald's analysis says this isn't true, with calm conditions across pretty much all the UK being fairly regular events.
Analysis from 1996 to 2005 shows similar results: large, rapid, and frequent changes of power output being common occurrences ... any national power system has to manage under the worst case conditions likely to occur ... These are not extreme cases, whose frequency is so low as to render the events negligible. Rather, these are representative ...
If the government succeeds in building its mighty 25 gigawatts of wind base by 2020, according to Oswald's Met Office data-based model its output will dip to pretty much nothing fairly routinely.
The next line of defence for wind advocates is normally the idea of hooking up the UK's grid with high-capacity links to those of other European nations, creating a "Supergrid" with wind so widely spread that output would be sure to even out. But Oswald has bad news for that idea, too. He compares his modelled UK big-wind output with that which has been produced in recent times by other European wind bases, particularly the substantial German/Danish one.
Not only does the large continental wind base exhibit nasty rollercoaster surges in aggregate output, these surges tend to match those to be expected in the UK. When the wind isn't blowing across most of the UK, it isn't blowing in Germany, Denmark etc. either. Worse still, this happens in the dead of winter when electricity demand is highest.
There is good agreement between the model and the [real-world European wind power output] data, which further supports the argument that wind output is controlled by the arrival and dispersal of large low-pressure systems moving over the coasts of Western Europe.
Being an engineer, Oswald examines the worst situations that occurred in his time frame - those that engineers would need to design the system to cope with. The nastiest situation that could happen would be early-evening flat calms in winter.
The relationship between wind power and demand was analysed by considering the moments of peak electrical demand in each of the last 6 years and ... the wind output for these moments ... each of them occur on a winter’s day between 5 pm and 6 pm, as this is the time when commercial and domestic demand combines into the day’s peak. As can be seen ... 16 January 2001 and 2 February 2006 were times of very little wind output ... and would likely fall into the category described as ‘low wind cold snap’ ... on 2 February 2006 the electricity demand in Britain reached its peak for 2006. The wind power model suggests that the output for the wind farms of Britain at that time would have been zero ... wind farm output for neighbouring countries has been determined for the same moment in time ... the measured output from NorthWest Germany, Ireland, and Spain was low ...
This passage in the report aroused particular ire from the British Wind Energy Association, speaking to the Sunday Telegraph on the matter at the weekend.
"When you look at the UK system as a whole, there is electricity coming from wind 100 per cent of the time," expostulated a testy spokesperson. "There is no moment in time when the output of the pool falls to zero."
Oswald's report partly agrees with this, saying that it is true that aggregate wind output is never exactly zero. Sometimes it's less than zero, though. It was during the nasty calm of 2006, for instance:
The [output of the UK's real-world] wind farms monitored by the National Grid [from 5-6 pm on February 2nd 2006] is shown as negative as the consumption of electricity used by these wind farms (to drive auxiliary loads) exceeded the total output.
And a supergrid to Europe wouldn't have helped, as everyone else had calms and high midwinter early evening demand too. That demand peak in 2006 was especially bad for wind power, but it was far from freakish. Such "low wind cold snaps" are routine, caused by midwinter high-pressure systems lurking on top of northwest Europe.
Like all such high-pressure systems they can easily hang about for a few days - sometimes longer - and according to Oswald this means you aren't going to cope with them by using pumped-storage kit. Such systems, typified by the Dinorwig installation in Scotland Wales, could lift water uphill using spare wind power on breezy mornings and let it flow down through hydropower turbines on calm evenings. They are much fancied by wind power advocates.
But speaking to the Reg yesterday, Oswald said that a realistically feasible UK pumped-storage base would only cope with one or two days of low winds at best. He said that there's a five-day calm most winters; and every twenty years or so you can expect a ten-dayer.
"I'm quite rude about pumped storage," he told us.
In his view, all this means that - certainly in a 2020 timeframe - the only feasible backup for the planned 25-gig wind base will be good old gas turbines. These would have to be built even if pumped storage existed, to deal with long-duration calms; and the expense of a triplefold wind, gas and pumped storage solution would be ridiculous. At present, gas turbine installations provide much of the grid's ability to deal with demand changes through the day.
The trouble is, according to Oswald, that human demand variance is predictable and smooth compared to wind output variance. Coping with the sudden ups and downs of wind is going to mean a lot more gas turbines - ones which will be thrashed especially hard as wind output surges up and down, and which will be fired up for less of the time.
Oswald is an expert on gas turbines, having worked for many years at Rolls Royce*. He says that most people, in allowing for gas backup to wind farms, assume that the current situation of gas-turbine usage applies. Not so, he says. Gas turbines used to compensate for wind will need to be cheap (as they won't be on and earning money as often as today's) and resilient (to cope with being throttled up and down so much). Even though the hardware will be cheap and tough, it will break often under such treatment; meaning increased maintenance costs and a need for even more backup plants to cover busted backup plants. Thus, the scheme overall will be more expensive than the current gas sector. And since people won't want to thrash expensive, efficient combined-cycle kit like this, less fuel-efficient gear will be used - emitting more carbon than people now assume.
High-efficiency base load plant is not designed or developed for load cycling ... Load cycling CCGT plant will induce thermal stress cracking in hot components ... The other impact on the individual plant is a reduction in the plant’s utilisation. This has an economic consequence, which will encourage operators of generation plants to buy cheaper, lower-efficiency and therefore higher carbon emission plants ... Reduced reliability will require more thermal plant to be installed ...
And it gets worse. All this will hammer the gas grid's pipeline networks and storage hardware too, costing the end consumer even more money - again, something that isn't currently accounted for in wind power schemes.
Power swings from wind will need to be compensated for by power swings from gas-powered plants, which in turn will induce comparable power swings on the gas network as plant ramps up and down. This will have a cost implication for the gas network, an implication that does not seem to have been included in cost of wind calculations ...
In essence, wind plans aren't actually wind plans, according to Oswald. They're gas plans with windfarms used to reduce the amount of gas actually burned in the plants. But he thinks the assumptions now made on costs and emissions reductions to be anticipated are unduly optimistic.
From one perspective, one might argue that this is the exact purpose of renewable plants, namely to reduce fossil fuel burning. However, it does this not by obviating the need for that plant, but instead by reducing the utilisation of power plants which continue to be indispensable. Electricity operators will respond to the reduced utilisation ... high capital [cleaner gas] plant is not justified under low utilisation regimes ... it is critically important that the carbon saving achieved by the whole system is known, understood, and achieved in practice. The effect of this higher carbon calculation does not appear to be mentioned ...
There was one little ray of light for wind power lovers, however. When we asked Oswald for his views on plans to deal with wind variation using car batteries plugged into the grid for charging, he said he hadn't so far factored that into his plans. There are those - Google, the Danes - who think this might be seriously useful if a large amount of road transport went electric. Obviously, that doesn't seem especially likely in a 2020 UK timeframe, but it might not take that much longer if oil prices stay high.
Of course, that in turn would mean a lot more electricity production required - perhaps magnifying the wind variation problem, if the increased 'leccy demand was met with windfarms. And the calm or windy periods might not come just when the electric car users wanted them to.
"It's an interesting dance," says Oswald.
PLEASE read the following why NYS needs to rethink the role of industrial wind. Why would the PSC approve the Iberdrola deal when NYS has less wind than in the UK? The Industrial Wind record in the EU needs to part of the review within the regulatory NYSPSC process. Common Sense, NYS wind pattern realities and wind turbine technology deficiencies are core elements that clearly demonstrate that the world largest wind developer is not a positive candidate for ownership and managerial control of the NYS electric utility market.
James Hall
PO Box 657
Naples, NY 14512
(585) 534-5581
Research: Wind power pricier, emits more CO2 than thought
'Windfarm output is never zero. Sometimes it's less'
Fresh contenders have entered the UK wind power debate, as a turbines expert funded by the Renewable Energy Foundation publishes an investigation into a hotly-disputed subject - the variability in output to be expected of a large UK windfarm base.
In a just-released article for the journal Energy Policy, titled Will British weather provide reliable electricity?, consulting engineer Jim Oswald and his co-authors model the output to be expected from a large, 25+ gigawatt UK windfarm collection of the type the government says it would like to see in service by 2020. Wind is generally seen as the renewable technology best suited to the UK climate, and so it forms the bulk of most renewables plans for Blighty.
One of the most frequent criticisms levelled at wind power is variability. That is, when the wind drops (or blows too hard) the windmills stop spinning and you get no power. To begin with, Oswald simulates the output rises and falls that might result from a lot of windfarms distributed around the UK by using Met Office archived data from different points up and down the land. Many wind advocates have argued that with enough windfarms, widely enough distributed, you would get more reliable power output as some windmills would always have wind.
Oswald's analysis says this isn't true, with calm conditions across pretty much all the UK being fairly regular events.
Analysis from 1996 to 2005 shows similar results: large, rapid, and frequent changes of power output being common occurrences ... any national power system has to manage under the worst case conditions likely to occur ... These are not extreme cases, whose frequency is so low as to render the events negligible. Rather, these are representative ...
If the government succeeds in building its mighty 25 gigawatts of wind base by 2020, according to Oswald's Met Office data-based model its output will dip to pretty much nothing fairly routinely.
The next line of defence for wind advocates is normally the idea of hooking up the UK's grid with high-capacity links to those of other European nations, creating a "Supergrid" with wind so widely spread that output would be sure to even out. But Oswald has bad news for that idea, too. He compares his modelled UK big-wind output with that which has been produced in recent times by other European wind bases, particularly the substantial German/Danish one.
Not only does the large continental wind base exhibit nasty rollercoaster surges in aggregate output, these surges tend to match those to be expected in the UK. When the wind isn't blowing across most of the UK, it isn't blowing in Germany, Denmark etc. either. Worse still, this happens in the dead of winter when electricity demand is highest.
There is good agreement between the model and the [real-world European wind power output] data, which further supports the argument that wind output is controlled by the arrival and dispersal of large low-pressure systems moving over the coasts of Western Europe.
Being an engineer, Oswald examines the worst situations that occurred in his time frame - those that engineers would need to design the system to cope with. The nastiest situation that could happen would be early-evening flat calms in winter.
The relationship between wind power and demand was analysed by considering the moments of peak electrical demand in each of the last 6 years and ... the wind output for these moments ... each of them occur on a winter’s day between 5 pm and 6 pm, as this is the time when commercial and domestic demand combines into the day’s peak. As can be seen ... 16 January 2001 and 2 February 2006 were times of very little wind output ... and would likely fall into the category described as ‘low wind cold snap’ ... on 2 February 2006 the electricity demand in Britain reached its peak for 2006. The wind power model suggests that the output for the wind farms of Britain at that time would have been zero ... wind farm output for neighbouring countries has been determined for the same moment in time ... the measured output from NorthWest Germany, Ireland, and Spain was low ...
This passage in the report aroused particular ire from the British Wind Energy Association, speaking to the Sunday Telegraph on the matter at the weekend.
"When you look at the UK system as a whole, there is electricity coming from wind 100 per cent of the time," expostulated a testy spokesperson. "There is no moment in time when the output of the pool falls to zero."
Oswald's report partly agrees with this, saying that it is true that aggregate wind output is never exactly zero. Sometimes it's less than zero, though. It was during the nasty calm of 2006, for instance:
The [output of the UK's real-world] wind farms monitored by the National Grid [from 5-6 pm on February 2nd 2006] is shown as negative as the consumption of electricity used by these wind farms (to drive auxiliary loads) exceeded the total output.
And a supergrid to Europe wouldn't have helped, as everyone else had calms and high midwinter early evening demand too. That demand peak in 2006 was especially bad for wind power, but it was far from freakish. Such "low wind cold snaps" are routine, caused by midwinter high-pressure systems lurking on top of northwest Europe.
Like all such high-pressure systems they can easily hang about for a few days - sometimes longer - and according to Oswald this means you aren't going to cope with them by using pumped-storage kit. Such systems, typified by the Dinorwig installation in Scotland Wales, could lift water uphill using spare wind power on breezy mornings and let it flow down through hydropower turbines on calm evenings. They are much fancied by wind power advocates.
But speaking to the Reg yesterday, Oswald said that a realistically feasible UK pumped-storage base would only cope with one or two days of low winds at best. He said that there's a five-day calm most winters; and every twenty years or so you can expect a ten-dayer.
"I'm quite rude about pumped storage," he told us.
In his view, all this means that - certainly in a 2020 timeframe - the only feasible backup for the planned 25-gig wind base will be good old gas turbines. These would have to be built even if pumped storage existed, to deal with long-duration calms; and the expense of a triplefold wind, gas and pumped storage solution would be ridiculous. At present, gas turbine installations provide much of the grid's ability to deal with demand changes through the day.
The trouble is, according to Oswald, that human demand variance is predictable and smooth compared to wind output variance. Coping with the sudden ups and downs of wind is going to mean a lot more gas turbines - ones which will be thrashed especially hard as wind output surges up and down, and which will be fired up for less of the time.
Oswald is an expert on gas turbines, having worked for many years at Rolls Royce*. He says that most people, in allowing for gas backup to wind farms, assume that the current situation of gas-turbine usage applies. Not so, he says. Gas turbines used to compensate for wind will need to be cheap (as they won't be on and earning money as often as today's) and resilient (to cope with being throttled up and down so much). Even though the hardware will be cheap and tough, it will break often under such treatment; meaning increased maintenance costs and a need for even more backup plants to cover busted backup plants. Thus, the scheme overall will be more expensive than the current gas sector. And since people won't want to thrash expensive, efficient combined-cycle kit like this, less fuel-efficient gear will be used - emitting more carbon than people now assume.
High-efficiency base load plant is not designed or developed for load cycling ... Load cycling CCGT plant will induce thermal stress cracking in hot components ... The other impact on the individual plant is a reduction in the plant’s utilisation. This has an economic consequence, which will encourage operators of generation plants to buy cheaper, lower-efficiency and therefore higher carbon emission plants ... Reduced reliability will require more thermal plant to be installed ...
And it gets worse. All this will hammer the gas grid's pipeline networks and storage hardware too, costing the end consumer even more money - again, something that isn't currently accounted for in wind power schemes.
Power swings from wind will need to be compensated for by power swings from gas-powered plants, which in turn will induce comparable power swings on the gas network as plant ramps up and down. This will have a cost implication for the gas network, an implication that does not seem to have been included in cost of wind calculations ...
In essence, wind plans aren't actually wind plans, according to Oswald. They're gas plans with windfarms used to reduce the amount of gas actually burned in the plants. But he thinks the assumptions now made on costs and emissions reductions to be anticipated are unduly optimistic.
From one perspective, one might argue that this is the exact purpose of renewable plants, namely to reduce fossil fuel burning. However, it does this not by obviating the need for that plant, but instead by reducing the utilisation of power plants which continue to be indispensable. Electricity operators will respond to the reduced utilisation ... high capital [cleaner gas] plant is not justified under low utilisation regimes ... it is critically important that the carbon saving achieved by the whole system is known, understood, and achieved in practice. The effect of this higher carbon calculation does not appear to be mentioned ...
There was one little ray of light for wind power lovers, however. When we asked Oswald for his views on plans to deal with wind variation using car batteries plugged into the grid for charging, he said he hadn't so far factored that into his plans. There are those - Google, the Danes - who think this might be seriously useful if a large amount of road transport went electric. Obviously, that doesn't seem especially likely in a 2020 UK timeframe, but it might not take that much longer if oil prices stay high.
Of course, that in turn would mean a lot more electricity production required - perhaps magnifying the wind variation problem, if the increased 'leccy demand was met with windfarms. And the calm or windy periods might not come just when the electric car users wanted them to.
"It's an interesting dance," says Oswald.
PSC Iberdrola Energy East July 3, 2008 Letter by James Hall
July 3, 2008
PSC Commissioners
C/O Hon. Jaclyn A. Brilling
Secretary to the Commission
New York State Public Service Commission
Agency Building 3
Albany, NY 12223-1350
Dear Commissioners:
Cohocton Wind Watch has expressed its opposition in detail to the Iberdrola acquisition of Energy East. Since our last submission, the media has continually reported that Iberdrola would be making a $2 billion investment in NYS subject to PSC approval. As previously indicated in the record of testimony before Judge Epstein from the Rochester evidentiary hearing, Iberdrola has transgressed EU Anti-trust law.
As you are already aware, the use of this $2 billion figure is really the funds already committed to existing industrial wind projects approved by the NYISO. For egomaniacal politicians and greed driven media publishers to imply that Iberdrola will be a savior for NYS energy policy is deceitful and dishonest.
If Iberdrola were a proven Anti-trust violator with a worldwide pattern of vertical domination of energy markets, why would PSC commissioners believe their business practices would be different in NYS? There will be no new windfall of meaningful investment. Iberdrola will just assume the debt of their current industrial wind developments as they come online after commissioning. The salient point is that Iberdrola will become the master controller of electric rates in the Energy East district while having the duel ability to acquire industrial wind projects throughout the rest of the state.
Now if this is not anticompetitive, just what is the purpose of the long enforced de-regulation utility policy of the Public Service Commission? Any change in the separation of generation from transmission/distribution to favor a foreign monopolist would adversely place other utilities at a systemic non-competitive position.
Your duty is to protect the public and NYS ratepayers. The arrogance Iberdrola demonstrates in the world press towards the PSC is intolerable. Their defiant attitude should foretell the manner that this conglomerate conducts business.
Cohocton Wind Watch has provided significant and voluminous data and evidence to the PSC. Please review all the facts that support our conclusions. Iberdrola is a company that has refined the reprehensible Enron model and will destroy the reliability of utility distribution, while causing dramatic electric rate increases for New Yorkers.
Cordially,
James Hall for CWW
PSC Commissioners
C/O Hon. Jaclyn A. Brilling
Secretary to the Commission
New York State Public Service Commission
Agency Building 3
Albany, NY 12223-1350
Dear Commissioners:
Cohocton Wind Watch has expressed its opposition in detail to the Iberdrola acquisition of Energy East. Since our last submission, the media has continually reported that Iberdrola would be making a $2 billion investment in NYS subject to PSC approval. As previously indicated in the record of testimony before Judge Epstein from the Rochester evidentiary hearing, Iberdrola has transgressed EU Anti-trust law.
As you are already aware, the use of this $2 billion figure is really the funds already committed to existing industrial wind projects approved by the NYISO. For egomaniacal politicians and greed driven media publishers to imply that Iberdrola will be a savior for NYS energy policy is deceitful and dishonest.
If Iberdrola were a proven Anti-trust violator with a worldwide pattern of vertical domination of energy markets, why would PSC commissioners believe their business practices would be different in NYS? There will be no new windfall of meaningful investment. Iberdrola will just assume the debt of their current industrial wind developments as they come online after commissioning. The salient point is that Iberdrola will become the master controller of electric rates in the Energy East district while having the duel ability to acquire industrial wind projects throughout the rest of the state.
Now if this is not anticompetitive, just what is the purpose of the long enforced de-regulation utility policy of the Public Service Commission? Any change in the separation of generation from transmission/distribution to favor a foreign monopolist would adversely place other utilities at a systemic non-competitive position.
Your duty is to protect the public and NYS ratepayers. The arrogance Iberdrola demonstrates in the world press towards the PSC is intolerable. Their defiant attitude should foretell the manner that this conglomerate conducts business.
Cohocton Wind Watch has provided significant and voluminous data and evidence to the PSC. Please review all the facts that support our conclusions. Iberdrola is a company that has refined the reprehensible Enron model and will destroy the reliability of utility distribution, while causing dramatic electric rate increases for New Yorkers.
Cordially,
James Hall for CWW
Attorney General Andrew Cuomo July 3, 2008 Letter by Jim Sawicki
July 3, 2008
Andrew Cuomo, Attorney General NYS
The Capitol
Albany, NY 12224-0341
Mr. Cuomo:
As a taxpayer, US citizen and lifelong resident of NYS, I am writing you objecting to the criminal activities associated with industrial wind development in NYS.
Our elected officials are being bamboozled by the industrial wind interests to believe that commercial/industrial wind projects are “friendly”, green and renewable. This is very misleading and incomplete information.
This industry is engaged in many illegal activities, supported by our elected officials that are supposed to be representing NYS citizens NOT the commercial wind interests, with their lobbyists, multi-national corporations and misleading and incomplete information (propaganda).
The corruption, deceit and disregard for proper procedure and laws by this industry should not be tolerated for one second. I personally know highly respected people with the highest level of integrity that possess information related to industrial wind’s illegal activities. They have already offered to meet with you on their time and dime. I strongly recommend you accept their offer.
A timely investigation is needed.
Legal rights of NYS citizens have already been abused and continue to be threatened by industrial/commercial wind companies that are allowed to do as they please through ignorant and/or bamboozled local governments AND their incomplete and misleading claims that have incorrectly affected the public’s and decision-makers’ views.
NYS citizens need your help to defend our legal rights and stop this madness!
Thank you for your consideration of this very important matter.
Respectfully,
Jim Sawicki
244 N. Main St.
Canandaigua, NY 14424
jsawicki@rochester.rr.com
Andrew Cuomo, Attorney General NYS
The Capitol
Albany, NY 12224-0341
Mr. Cuomo:
As a taxpayer, US citizen and lifelong resident of NYS, I am writing you objecting to the criminal activities associated with industrial wind development in NYS.
Our elected officials are being bamboozled by the industrial wind interests to believe that commercial/industrial wind projects are “friendly”, green and renewable. This is very misleading and incomplete information.
This industry is engaged in many illegal activities, supported by our elected officials that are supposed to be representing NYS citizens NOT the commercial wind interests, with their lobbyists, multi-national corporations and misleading and incomplete information (propaganda).
The corruption, deceit and disregard for proper procedure and laws by this industry should not be tolerated for one second. I personally know highly respected people with the highest level of integrity that possess information related to industrial wind’s illegal activities. They have already offered to meet with you on their time and dime. I strongly recommend you accept their offer.
A timely investigation is needed.
Legal rights of NYS citizens have already been abused and continue to be threatened by industrial/commercial wind companies that are allowed to do as they please through ignorant and/or bamboozled local governments AND their incomplete and misleading claims that have incorrectly affected the public’s and decision-makers’ views.
NYS citizens need your help to defend our legal rights and stop this madness!
Thank you for your consideration of this very important matter.
Respectfully,
Jim Sawicki
244 N. Main St.
Canandaigua, NY 14424
jsawicki@rochester.rr.com
Developers scramble as sun sets on energy credits
Uncertainty over the future of federal tax credits for renewable energy projects has local developers scurrying to complete work by year’s end out of fear the incentives may lapse.
Two programs in particular, the production tax credit for wind development and the investment tax credit for solar development, are set to expire at the end of the year if Congress does not pass extensions. An extension bill calling for $17 billion in tax incentives has been introduced but faces partisan hurdles in the U.S. Senate.
Some in the wind industry say the damage is already done.
“If we had a project that was ready for construction, we wouldn’t be building it right now,” said Paul Gaynor, president and CEO of Newton wind developer First Wind Inc. “It’s more luck than anything else that the two projects we have for 2008 began construction early and we have some projects that for their own individual reasons are not as dependent on the PTC than others.”
For a project to receive the tax credits, it must be producing power before the credits expire.
But history has shown that wind development slows dramatically when the tax credit is not in place. For example, when the production tax credit was allowed to lapse for 10 months in 2004, new capacity dropped to 389 megawatts from 1,687 megawatts the year before, according the AWEA.
Industry executives say they are confident some version of a tax credit will be passed eventually, although some executives said it may not be before a new president is sworn in. But the key to the industry’s success, they say, is long-term support and predictability.
(Click to read entire article)
Two programs in particular, the production tax credit for wind development and the investment tax credit for solar development, are set to expire at the end of the year if Congress does not pass extensions. An extension bill calling for $17 billion in tax incentives has been introduced but faces partisan hurdles in the U.S. Senate.
Some in the wind industry say the damage is already done.
“If we had a project that was ready for construction, we wouldn’t be building it right now,” said Paul Gaynor, president and CEO of Newton wind developer First Wind Inc. “It’s more luck than anything else that the two projects we have for 2008 began construction early and we have some projects that for their own individual reasons are not as dependent on the PTC than others.”
For a project to receive the tax credits, it must be producing power before the credits expire.
But history has shown that wind development slows dramatically when the tax credit is not in place. For example, when the production tax credit was allowed to lapse for 10 months in 2004, new capacity dropped to 389 megawatts from 1,687 megawatts the year before, according the AWEA.
Industry executives say they are confident some version of a tax credit will be passed eventually, although some executives said it may not be before a new president is sworn in. But the key to the industry’s success, they say, is long-term support and predictability.
(Click to read entire article)
State gives a bit on Iberdrola
What a misleading headline in today's D&C. Don't let the headline fool you. The PSC has NOT made their final recommendation regarding the Iberdrola takeover. There are still many conditions to be agreed upon by both the PSC and Iberdrola before the purchase of Energy East. Here is the link to the D & C article.
Make sure to read the online comments after the article - you can easily login to the D&C website if you would also like to comment.
To Quote Sen. Charles Schumer in todays's D&C, "Done correctly, this merger can reduce costs and make New York a leader in providing clean, cheap wind power."
CHEAP? Who is Chuck Schumer kidding? What is so "cheap" about the turbines in Prattsburgh and Cohocton? hmm...... At approx $2.5M EACH, I hardly call that cheap! Let's see, last count there was approx 37 or 38 "cheap wind power" turbines - Mr. Schumer, do the math! Mr. Schumer, why do only 5 of the turbines have blades? Mr. Schumer, will they ever turn? Mr. Schumer, who paid for the turbines on top of our hills? In other words, where did the $$ come from? Mr. Schumer, exactly who will benefit from the "cheap wind power". Mr. Schumer, what happened to our pristine views? Mr. Schumer, have you driven on Main Street in Naples heading south lately? Again, I ask, what is so cheap about wind power?
If you have not yet taken the time to write the PSC to voice your opinion, decision time is close, in fact, sorry for the short notice but the deadline to voice your opinion in Thursday, July 3rd.
Hon. Jaclyn A. Brilling
Secretary to the Commission
New York State Public Service Commission
Fax: (518) 486-6081
secretary@dps.state.ny.us
VOICE YOUR OPINION BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE
Make sure to read the online comments after the article - you can easily login to the D&C website if you would also like to comment.
To Quote Sen. Charles Schumer in todays's D&C, "Done correctly, this merger can reduce costs and make New York a leader in providing clean, cheap wind power."
CHEAP? Who is Chuck Schumer kidding? What is so "cheap" about the turbines in Prattsburgh and Cohocton? hmm...... At approx $2.5M EACH, I hardly call that cheap! Let's see, last count there was approx 37 or 38 "cheap wind power" turbines - Mr. Schumer, do the math! Mr. Schumer, why do only 5 of the turbines have blades? Mr. Schumer, will they ever turn? Mr. Schumer, who paid for the turbines on top of our hills? In other words, where did the $$ come from? Mr. Schumer, exactly who will benefit from the "cheap wind power". Mr. Schumer, what happened to our pristine views? Mr. Schumer, have you driven on Main Street in Naples heading south lately? Again, I ask, what is so cheap about wind power?
If you have not yet taken the time to write the PSC to voice your opinion, decision time is close, in fact, sorry for the short notice but the deadline to voice your opinion in Thursday, July 3rd.
Hon. Jaclyn A. Brilling
Secretary to the Commission
New York State Public Service Commission
Fax: (518) 486-6081
secretary@dps.state.ny.us
VOICE YOUR OPINION BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE
New York PSC staff may be ready to compromise with Iberdrola by Jim Stinson of the D & C
Iberdrola spokesmen noted, however, that the PSC staff is still recommending a "no" vote on the takeover and said the company doesn't see a significant change from the staff's previous opposition.
And the two sides remain far apart on how much Iberdrola should pay in ratepayer benefits. The PSC staff is still seeking $644 million, which Iberdrola said is excessive. The staff said Iberdrola's $201 million offer is "paltry."
But the issue of ratepayer benefits might fall by the wayside if the more fundamental issue — Iberdrola's ownership of both wind farms and the distribution networks of RG&E and NYSEG — can be resolved.
(Click to read entire article)
And the two sides remain far apart on how much Iberdrola should pay in ratepayer benefits. The PSC staff is still seeking $644 million, which Iberdrola said is excessive. The staff said Iberdrola's $201 million offer is "paltry."
But the issue of ratepayer benefits might fall by the wayside if the more fundamental issue — Iberdrola's ownership of both wind farms and the distribution networks of RG&E and NYSEG — can be resolved.
(Click to read entire article)
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Hint of shift in the wind at PSC: Staff of regulator offers compromise to Iberdrola; company sees little change in wind-farm issue
Iberdrola SA would be able to own wind farms in New York state if it acquires Energy East Corp. under a scenario proposed by the staff of the Public Service Commission.
The wind-farm issue has been one of the biggest stumbling blocks to the proposed $4.5 billion merger, which must get approval from the five-member PSC to move forward.
Iberdrola is the world's largest wind-farm developer and has proposed investing as much as $2 billion in wind projects across the state over the next five years.
The PSC staff, which advises the commissioners, has been arguing against the deal. It has said the Spanish company would hold too much sway over New York's wholesale electric market in an abuse of what is called "vertical market power": buying Energy East's electric transmission and distribution system, and developing and owning its own power plants, including wind turbines.
New York regulators have discouraged utilities from owning power-generation plants as part of deregulation of the state's energy markets.
In a brief filed Thursday as part of the case, the PSC staff said it still opposes Iberdrola owning any power-generation facilities in New York if it buys Energy East, the parent of Rochester Gas & Electric and New York State Electric & Gas.
However, in a move that appears to offer a hint of compromise, the PSC staff said there are "alternative proposals" that the commission could adopt that would allow Iberdrola to own wind farms while still protecting consumers.
Under this alternative, the PSC would address vertical market power issues with Iberdrola's wind projects on a case-by-case basis.
"If it can be demonstrated that Iberdrola has exercised (vertical market power) in any such proceeding, permission to build another wind facility could be denied," the PSC staff said.
The staff suggested that Iberdrola also be forced to enter into long-term contracts with its wind facilities "that divorces the profit from the market price."
The PSC staff also wants Iberdrola to set up a $200 million fund that will be disbursed to customers if it fails to live up to its promise of developing $2 billion in wind projects in the state.
On Tuesday, Iberdrola discounted the PSC staff's suggestions.
"The PSC staff has not changed its position at all," said an Iberdrola spokesman. "They make it clear, they still prefer prohibition." He said Iberdrola believes the alternatives "do not make sense."
One party in the case, the state Consumer Protection Board, said it was happy with the PSC staff's alternative scenario.
Mindy Bockstein, executive director of the watchdog agency, said she was "pleased" that the PSC staff is considering lifting its outright prohibition against Iberdrola owning wind generation in the state.
"Such a prohibition is not required to protect ratepayers, as our agency has advocated throughout this proceeding, as other measures are available to guard against potential anti-competitive conduct," Bockstein said. "Indeed, as Governor Paterson has previously stated, it is important to find a compromise that enables the development of clean energy and still protects consumer and state interests." Larry Rulison can be reached at 454-5504 or by e-mail at lrulison@timesunion.com.
Previously: As part of Iberdrola SA's $4.5 billion acquisition of Energy East Corp., an administrative law judge recommended that the five-member Public Service Commission approve the deal only with significant conditions, including barring Iberdrola from owning wind farms in Energy East's service territory.
The latest:In a brief filed as part of the case last week, the PSC staff offers a scenario under which Iberdrola could own wind farms in the state, if the PSC commissioners want to allow it.
What's next: Additional briefs are due Thursday, and the commission could vote on the merger at its August or September meeting.
The wind-farm issue has been one of the biggest stumbling blocks to the proposed $4.5 billion merger, which must get approval from the five-member PSC to move forward.
Iberdrola is the world's largest wind-farm developer and has proposed investing as much as $2 billion in wind projects across the state over the next five years.
The PSC staff, which advises the commissioners, has been arguing against the deal. It has said the Spanish company would hold too much sway over New York's wholesale electric market in an abuse of what is called "vertical market power": buying Energy East's electric transmission and distribution system, and developing and owning its own power plants, including wind turbines.
New York regulators have discouraged utilities from owning power-generation plants as part of deregulation of the state's energy markets.
In a brief filed Thursday as part of the case, the PSC staff said it still opposes Iberdrola owning any power-generation facilities in New York if it buys Energy East, the parent of Rochester Gas & Electric and New York State Electric & Gas.
However, in a move that appears to offer a hint of compromise, the PSC staff said there are "alternative proposals" that the commission could adopt that would allow Iberdrola to own wind farms while still protecting consumers.
Under this alternative, the PSC would address vertical market power issues with Iberdrola's wind projects on a case-by-case basis.
"If it can be demonstrated that Iberdrola has exercised (vertical market power) in any such proceeding, permission to build another wind facility could be denied," the PSC staff said.
The staff suggested that Iberdrola also be forced to enter into long-term contracts with its wind facilities "that divorces the profit from the market price."
The PSC staff also wants Iberdrola to set up a $200 million fund that will be disbursed to customers if it fails to live up to its promise of developing $2 billion in wind projects in the state.
On Tuesday, Iberdrola discounted the PSC staff's suggestions.
"The PSC staff has not changed its position at all," said an Iberdrola spokesman. "They make it clear, they still prefer prohibition." He said Iberdrola believes the alternatives "do not make sense."
One party in the case, the state Consumer Protection Board, said it was happy with the PSC staff's alternative scenario.
Mindy Bockstein, executive director of the watchdog agency, said she was "pleased" that the PSC staff is considering lifting its outright prohibition against Iberdrola owning wind generation in the state.
"Such a prohibition is not required to protect ratepayers, as our agency has advocated throughout this proceeding, as other measures are available to guard against potential anti-competitive conduct," Bockstein said. "Indeed, as Governor Paterson has previously stated, it is important to find a compromise that enables the development of clean energy and still protects consumer and state interests." Larry Rulison can be reached at 454-5504 or by e-mail at lrulison@timesunion.com.
Previously: As part of Iberdrola SA's $4.5 billion acquisition of Energy East Corp., an administrative law judge recommended that the five-member Public Service Commission approve the deal only with significant conditions, including barring Iberdrola from owning wind farms in Energy East's service territory.
The latest:In a brief filed as part of the case last week, the PSC staff offers a scenario under which Iberdrola could own wind farms in the state, if the PSC commissioners want to allow it.
What's next: Additional briefs are due Thursday, and the commission could vote on the merger at its August or September meeting.
NY Regulators: Make Iberdola commit to wind energy development
The staff of the state Public Service Commission has again advised its five-member board to disapprove the $4.5 billion sale of Energy East Corp. to Iberdrola SA, but staffers have added a big “however” on wind farms.
In a brief filed in the long-running case, the PSC staff has offered alternatives if the five public service commissioners approve the sale, according to James Denn, PSC spokesman.
Iberdrola, the European utility giant and global leader in wind turbine farms, would be allowed to own and operate wind farms within Energy East territory, but with public benefits attached to the agreement.
The staff recommended that Iberdrola’s $2 billion proposal to invest in New York be tied to possible ratepayer rebates. The PSC staff said that to ensure the promise to build more wind farms in New York, the state could set aside $200 million of Iberdrola cash to be returned to ratepayers if the investment never happens.
The alternative proposal, known as Exception 6 in the PSC reply brief, comes after months of criticism and speculation regarding PSC’s opposition to letting Iberdrola buy Energy East.
(Click to read entire article)
In a brief filed in the long-running case, the PSC staff has offered alternatives if the five public service commissioners approve the sale, according to James Denn, PSC spokesman.
Iberdrola, the European utility giant and global leader in wind turbine farms, would be allowed to own and operate wind farms within Energy East territory, but with public benefits attached to the agreement.
The staff recommended that Iberdrola’s $2 billion proposal to invest in New York be tied to possible ratepayer rebates. The PSC staff said that to ensure the promise to build more wind farms in New York, the state could set aside $200 million of Iberdrola cash to be returned to ratepayers if the investment never happens.
The alternative proposal, known as Exception 6 in the PSC reply brief, comes after months of criticism and speculation regarding PSC’s opposition to letting Iberdrola buy Energy East.
(Click to read entire article)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)