This is a map of the footprint of the 78MW Stella Solar and Atlantic Green Power project proposed for Upper Pittsgrove, New Jersey.  I’ve ehard there are others planned nearby, but that this is the biggest.

Project description from Atlantic Green Power Holding Company 3Q 10-Q filing:

Pittsgrove Solar Farm

There are two meetings coming up about this project:

Informational Meeting

Elmer Grange Hall

Tuesday, March 16, 2010 from 6 to 8:30 p.m.

and the Land Use meeting where the town will approve or deny the application:

Upper Pittsgrove Town Hall

Thursday, March 18, 2010 at 7:30 p.m.

Now you all know how I love solar, from the solar hot water my father designed for the Minnesota Zoo to those simple little heaters you can make or buy:

Build a Simple Solar Heater

Northern Tool sells simple solar air heaters

Every house needs these simple solar heaters.

Solar PV should also be on the roof of every big box there is, and on every home.  But to be clear, I don’t think it belongs covering prime ag fields a long way from load.  That isn’t “highest and best use,” and  just doesn’t make sense when you consider the capacity factor of solar and the line loss over transmission.  So, this project seems odd…

Why do it?  Well, look who is involved and the incentives — means, motive and opportunity — and given that, I hope the town will take a close look before jumping, at the very least, require these conditions (off the top of my head):

1. No ag land be removed from production; and
2. No ag land be removed from ag preservation designation; and
3. Commercial solar be limited to commercial and industrial areas; and
4. Commercial solar be limited to roofs in rural areas.

WHO IS GOING TO BUY THIS POWER?

LET’S SEE THE POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT!

The article way below, from Today’s Sunbeam, says it is to be built on land that “is currently owned by Ed Stella and will be leased to Atlantic Green Power…” but the Atlantic Green Power site says that Edward Stella, Jr., is the “Vice President of Project Development.”  From what I can see, this is their FIRST project.  Edward Stella as VP?  Really, it’s right here, so we’re not exactly talking about an arms length transaction:

Edward Stella, Jr.

Vice President of Project Development, Director

Edward Stella, Jr. was appointed as the Vice President of Project Development and as a Director of Atlantic Green Power Holding Company on February 3, 2010. He also was a founder of Atlantic Green Power Corporation, the wholly-owned subsidiary of Atlantic Green Power Holding Company, and has served as a Director thereof since its inception on September 17, 2009. He has over 30 years of experience in land development, land clearing and mulching operations. He is the President of Stella Contracting, Inc., one of the largest land-clearing companies operating on the East Coast, and the President of South Jersey Agricultural Products (SJAP), a company engaged in the sale of top soil and mulch to such customers as Scott’s, Coastal Supply, Home Depot and Lowes. Mr. Stella has had the honor of being nominated by Ernst & Young LLP for Entrepreneur of the Year in 2000 in the greater Philadelphia area.

If he’s connected to “such customers as Scott’s, Coastal Supply, Home Depot and Lowes” why aren’t they putting solar on the roofs of those big boxes, where it can be used, and not on prime ag land far away from big boxes?

Atlantic Green Power Holding Company has been in existence since September 17, 2009, and Edward Stella, Jr., has been “Vice President of Project Development” and a “Director” for all of a month.

A press released based blurb provides two sources for more information:

Robert Demos, Jr., President & CEO of Atlantic Green Power Holding Company

and

Howard Greene, Greene Inc., and CLICK HERE FOR GREENEINCPR.COM — HA!!

So now, let’s look at Lodestar Mining… from their site, their ONLY press release listed posts these links for Atlantic Green Power and Lodestar.  CLICK ON THESE LINKS THAT THEY PROVIDED:

AGPH per yahoo

So keep digging - here are their SEC filings

LGST - their own link says “There are no All Market results”

Hmmmmmmmmmmm…

CLICK HERE for Lodestar’s 10-Q for the year ending June 30, 2008, with this statement:

Lodestar’s financial statements have been prepared on a going concern basis, which contemplates the realization of assets and settlement of liabilities and commitments in the normal course of business for the foreseeable future. Since inception, the Company has accumulated losses aggregating to $31,301 and has insufficient working capital to meet operating needs for the next twelve months as of June 30, 2008, all of which raise substantial doubt about Lodestar’s ability to continue as a going concern.

CLICK HERE FOR LATE FILED 2008 10-K.

From their 10-K regarding their one option contract:

As of March 13, 2009, the second option payment of $75,000 had not been made. Accordingly, Lodestar executed an extension agreement dated March 12, 2009 with Claim Lake Nickel wherein Claim Lake agreed to extend the term for the second payment to March 13, 2010.

Claim Lake intends to continue to develop its property through additional surface exploration comprising geological mapping, lithogeochemistry and soil geochemistry and diamond drilling. This activity is dependent on being able to raise additional funding.

If we are unable to complete any phase of exploration because we don’t have enough money, we will cease operations until we raise more money.  If we can’t or don’t raise more money, we will cease operations.  We do not intend to hire additional employees at this time.  All of the work on the property will be conducted by unaffiliated independent contractors that we will hire.  The independent contractors will be responsible for surveying, geology, engineering, exploration, and excavation.  The geologists will evaluate the information derived from the exploration and excavation and the engineers will advise us on the economic feasibility of removing the mineralized material.

And this snippet:

Liquidity and Capital Resources

To meet our need for cash we closed an equity offering and raised $50,500 in Canadian dollars.  We cannot guarantee that these funds will be sufficient to stay in business.  If we find mineralized material and it is economically feasible to remove the mineralized material, we will attempt to raise additional money through a subsequent private placement, public offering or through loans.  If the funds we raised are insufficient to complete our exploration of the property, we will have to find alternative sources, like a second public offering, a private placement of securities, or loans from our officers or others.

At December 31, 2008, we had a working capital deficit of ($137,602), which is currently insufficient for us to implement our business plan.

At the present time, we have not made any arrangements to raise additional cash other than through the offering that was registered with the SEC in March, 2008 and closed in 2008.  If we need additional cash and can’t raise it we will either have to suspend operations until we do raise the cash, or cease operations entirely.  The funds raised in the March, 2008 registration offering will allow the company to operate until March, 2010.  Other than as described in this paragraph, we have no other financing plans.

As of March 13, 2009, the second option payment of $75,000 had not been made. Accordingly, Lodestar executed an extension agreement dated March 12, 2009 with Claim Lake Nickel wherein Claim Lake agreed to extend the term for the second payment to March 13, 2010.

As of December 31, 2008, we have yet to generate any revenues.

We issued 3,000,000 shares of common stock pursuant to the exemption from registration set forth in section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933. On November 15, 2006, the corporation issued 3,000,000 shares of restricted common stock to Ian McKinnon, Chief Executive Officer of Lodestar Mining, Incorporated, that Rule 144 of the Securities Act of 1933 defines as restricted securities.  The shares were issued in consideration for payment of $30,000 US from Ian McKinnon.  These shares will be restricted by the resale limitations of Rule 144 under the Securities Act of 1933.

We registered 2,000,000 shares of common stock to be offered at $0.05 per share.  In 2008, we issued 1,010,000 shares at $0.05 per share for a total of $50,500 (Canadian dollars).

As of December 31, 2008, our total assets were $9,806 US and our total liabilities were $147,408 US.

And again, a statement of its tenuous existence as a going concern:

CLICK HERE for latest SEC filings as Atlantic Green Power Holding Company — SUDDENLY IT’S ATLANTIC GREEN POWER HOLDING COMPANY, NEW PEOPLE, NEW PUROSE

And again, the solar project particulars:

Pittsgrove Solar Farm

Something that caught my eye on their site — which is repeated in the SEC 3Q 10-Q filing — a press release that talks about the ARRA incentive, a 30% cash payment in lieu of federal investment tax credit, and federally guaranteed loans and a 30% investment tax credit.  Seems ALL of those would apply here, so let’s say Mr. Stella is  “motivated.”

In the U.S., the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act stimulus bill of 2009 (ARRA) contains several provisions designed to alleviate renewable energy project financing constraints resulting from the economic downturn.

The ARRA establishes a temporary grant program that will allow commercial solar customers to receive a cash payment to cover 30% of the cost of installing solar equipment in lieu of the federal investment tax credit. The ARRA also appropriated $6 billion for a new loan guarantee program which the government estimates could support up to $60 billion of loans specifically for renewable energy and transmission projects. In addition, ARRA includes up to $2.3 billion for a new 30% investment tax credit for U.S. based renewable energy product production facilities.

Here’s the article from Today’s Sunbeam:

]]> http://legalectric.org/weblog/5052/feed/ http://legalectric.org/weblog/5046/ http://legalectric.org/weblog/5046/#comments Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:51:32 +0000 Carol A. Overland http://legalectric.org/?p=5046 Scoping Comments for the National Park Service EIS regarding the Susquehanna-Roseland transmission project are due today.  Here’s the Comments for Stop the Lines, and I’ll add those I receive from others that come in.

Stop the Lines - NPS EIS Scoping Comments

PJM State of the Market 2009

Don’t worry, I can FEEL you all rolling your eyes, just suspend disbelief and read this thing.  If nothing else, just look at the pictures!

And if you want to download it, well, pour a cup of coffee, and maybe pack a lunch, it’s a big report with lots of graphics that takes a while.  But it’s well worth it…

In the news today is Rowan Garrigan, Mary Beth Garrigan’s daughter.  I know Mary Beth as Director of the National Eagle Center in Wabasha back from when I was on the Board of Directors.  Rowan is a typical teen, tweeting away, but for the duration of the Franklin exhibit at the Minnesota History Center, she is tweeting history — every day she tweets as Ben Franklin.  I wonder what he’d think?  And best of all, she says she loves “doing little experiments with electricity!”  We need an electrical engineer with a brain like hers!

Minnesota Girl Tweets as Benjamin Franklin - Fox 9

Overland Comments - Hiawatha DEIS

Exhibit A - NM-SPG - July 24, 2008

Exhibit B - NSP Petition for CFSR

Exhibit C - NSP/Taylors Falls/St. Croix Falls Agreement

Exhibit D - Chisago County Resolution re: Facilities Surcharge Rider

Exhibit E - Comments of Power Line Task Force - Docket 99-799

Exhibit F - Conductor Specs - from PUC Docket 01-1958, Ex 35 Application, Appendix 7

Exhibit G - Edison Institute - Transmission Property Values Report

Exhibits D and E, oh my, time flies… I’d completely forgotten about those.  And the utilities keep singing the same old tired songs…

1. Go to www.puc.state.mn.us
2. Click on “Search eDockets“
3. Search for:

• 08-1233 - Wind Siting Permit
• 09-1186 - Certificate of Need
• 09-1349 - Power Purchase Agreement
• 09-1350 - Power Purchase Agreement

The EIS Scoping Meeting was held by the MN Dept. of Commerce MOES last Thursday, and here’s the report from the Red Wing Republican Beagle:

Published March 05 2010

Weighing in on wind

MAZEPPA - Larry Hartman threw a question out to the large crowd gathered Thursday to learn and comment about a proposed 52-turbine wind farm in rural Goodhue.

“What is wind?” the Minnesota Office of Energy Security staffer asked.

Mumbles from the crowd highlighted what has divided some neighbors and friends the past few years since wind energy companies came knocking, offering landowners money to house turbines.

“An investment.”

“Energy.”

“A scam.”

More than 30 residents provided a wide variety of opinions and comments during a three-hour meeting to gather input for an environmental review required as part of AWA Goodhue’s certificate of need application filed with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission.

The company, managed by National Wind, also has filed a site permit application with the PUC, the state agency that handles such large-sale projects.

Some Goodhue County residents remain skeptical of the proposed 32,000-acre project that some of their neighbors and wind energy company advocates say will stimulate the area’s economy and help the state meet renewable energy demands.

Hundreds of project opponents - dubbed Goodhue Wind Truth - have submitted a petition to the Goodhue County Board asking for a “safe renewable energy plan.”

The petition asks commissioners to implement a one-half mile setback between wind turbines and homes to help reduce the health and safety threats residents say turbines pose.

“The safety and health of people is a priority over money,” said Steve Groth, a Belle Creek Township landowner and member of Goodhue Wind Truth. “The government is there to protect you. When you sidestep that issue, everything falls apart.”

Economic opportunity

Chuck Burdick, senior wind developer with National Wind, said his company’s project will bring 100 to 200 jobs to the area during construction and two to five permanent jobs.

He said leaseholders and participants will receive more than $20 million over the life of the project.

“We think that’s a significant economic injection into the area,” Burdick said.

Some area landowners agree.

They say harvesting wind gives farmers another way to supplement their income and that wind energy is another part of the changing rural lifestyle.

Larry Fox, a Belle Creek Township landowner, said he hears the hum of corn driers and can smell manure when the wind blows just right.

“I don’t complain,” he said. “We just adapt and know this is a farm community.”

Fox said he would receive $30,000 over the next 20 years for housing a wind turbine.

“That’s a tremendous amount of revenue for these small communities,” Fox said. “I think revenue outweighs a lot of factors here.”

Other farmers say they’re excited to house alternative energy on their land.

Sara Linker Nord lives in Minneola Township and has land in AWA Goodhue’s project footprint. She said she found the wind turbines just outside Palm Springs, Calif., “aesthetically pleasing and majestic” and was disappointed when she found out others did not feel the same.

“It gives farms another crop with little land loss,” she said. “Alternative energy created on American soil increases our energy independence.”

Health concerns

But opponents argue the dangers associated with wind turbines outweigh any alleged financial benefits.

“When you put these turbines up and call yourself and environmentalist, I’d like you to do some soul searching,” said Tom Schulte, a rural Goodhue County landowner who said he recently built a geothermally heated and cooled energy efficient home.

“Because you’re probably not doing it for the environment, you’re doing it because you’re profiting.”

Schulte and other opponents said the environment and rural landscape are at risk if wind energy is not developed properly and responsibly. Livestock, water supplies, agricultural land, bald eagles and other birds need to be protected and studies need to be completed to analyze wind farm impacts, several residents told state officials.

Opponents also argue the state-required setbacks between homes and turbines are not great enough to minimize safety and health issues associated with turbine shadow flicker and noise.

Minnesota law requires a minimum 500-foot setback from residences or the state noise standard, whichever is greater. Minnesota’s noise standard restricts wind turbines from exceeding 50 decibels at night.

In practice, meeting that standard often means placing wind turbines at distances of 700 to 1,200 feet, according to a recent report by the Minnesota Department of Health.

The DOH’s scientific study found that noise from wind turbines “generally is not a major concern for humans beyond a half-mile or so,” because of design innovations to reduce noise.

Goodhue Wind Truth members want at half-mile setbacks. AWA Goodhue is doing voluntary 1,500-foot setbacks (just over one-quarter mile) from non-participating residents, Burdick said.

Zumbrota Mayor Richard Bauer also asked state officials to consider two-mile setbacks from Zumbrota and Goodhue’s corporate limits to make sure the cities are able to grow in an “orderly manner.”

Comments for the environmental report will be accepted until March 26. They can be sent to Larry Hartman, Minnesota Department of Commerce, 85 Seventh Place E. Suite 500, St. Paul, MN 55101. Comments can be sent by e-mail to larry.hartman@state.mn.us.

Photo from the Country News - Does MOES’ Larry Hartman have a headache?  Is he dreaming of retirement?  He IS holding on to the microphone, word has it that people such as the speaker here, Dean Bungum, weren’t given the microphone to speak.  It was standing room only for the MOES public meeting for the wind project going up on Dexter.

On March 4, Thursday, it was the same scene in Mazeppa for the Goodhue Wind Project…   Oh, the AVA Goodhue Wind Project, the names have been changed to protect … nevermind.  We don’t know why the name was changed.  But there are new people involved.  How does that change in ownership affect the already questioned C-BED status of this project?

They held the Goodhue meeting in Mazeppa?  Why?  Why not in Goodhue County?  Why not at the Goodhue Lions Club?  Why not at the Zumbrota school?  Or the Legion on 58 in the middle of town…

There are some significant deadlines in the Goodhue Wind Project.  Oh, first, to look up the dockets on PUC site:

CLICK HERE FOR PUC DOCKET SEARCH

Search for 09-1186 (Certificate of Need); 08-1233 (Siting) and 09-1349 & 09-1350 (Power Purchase Agmts)

IMPORTANT DATES:

March 15 - Comments in PPA Dockets on Xcel’s request for amendment - send to stuart.mitchell@state.mn.us and burl.haar@state.mn.us and file on eFiling if you can.

March 26 - Comments for scope of Environmental Report for Siting & Certificate of Need - send to larry.hartman@state.mn.us

March 29 - Reply Comments in PPA Dockets about others comments on Xcel’s request for amendment - send to stuart.mitchell@state.mn.us and burl.haar@state.mn.us and file on eFiling if you can.

Holler if questions!

This was in the mail — what a day this has been.  I’ve been buried in other things and lost track of this one.

ORDER EXTINGUISHING CERTIFICATE OF NEED, SUSPENDING ROUTE PERMIT, PROVIDING FOR PERMIT REVOCATION, AND REQUIRING FILINGS

Big Stone II transmission connected into CapX.

The transmission study shows that BSII transmission needs CapX:

Draft BSII Delivery Report to MISO

G392 System Impact Study Report Draft 8-24-06

BSII SPG Presentation 10-19-06

And the question remains — how much does CapX 2020 need BSII?

Thanks to a little birdie for bringing this PUC Order to my attention!!!

Stop the Lines!!!

National Park Service has extended the deadline for EIS Scoping Comments on the Susquehanna-Roseland transmission project.  WHEW!  Now we have until March 12 to send our comments in!

NPS Home Page for Susquehanna-Roseland Transmission Project

Get your clues on Comments from what they do and do not include:

NPS Internal Scoping Document

It’s in the Pocono Times:

Transmission line public scoping period extended

From the NPS blog:

Posted March 5th, 2010 by Kurt Repanshek

High public interest has prompted the superintendents of Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, and the Middle Delaware National Scenic and Recreational River and National Recreation Water Trail to extend by a week the public comment period on a proposal to run a transmission line across the areas.

The comment period was scheduled to end today, but has been extended through March 12.

“Scoping comments,” those that suggest areas the Park Service should examine in preparing an environmental impact statement, are being taken to help agency managers prepare an EIS on a proposal to replace existing 80-foot transmission towers with larger towers (up to 200 feet high) and add an additional 500 kV transmission line.

Park Service officials say the request would necessitate widening the cleared area and the existing right-of-way and constructing access roads. The proposed expanded line and new towers would impact the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area; the Middle Delaware National Scenic and Recreational River and National Recreation Water Trail; and the Appalachian National Scenic Trail.

The EIS will analyze a reasonable range of alternatives to meet project objectives; evaluate potential issues and impacts to the resources and values of the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, Middle Delaware National Scenic and Recreational River, and the Appalachian National Scenic Trail park units, and identify mitigation measures to lessen the degree or extent of these impacts.

There are numerous ways for the public to provide comments on the public scoping phase of the planning process, including leaving a message on the Park Planning Information Telephone Line (570-426-2491), submitting comments online through a link on the National Park Service Planning, Environment and Public Comment site, http://parkplanning.nps.gov (select Appalachian NST or Delaware Water Gap NRA), or by mailing comments to:

National Park Service
Attention: DEWA PPL EIS Planning Team
Denver Service Center-Planning Division
P.O. Box 25287
Denver, CO 80225-0287

Detailed information about the need for the EIS and the project timeline
can be found on the National Park Service Planning, Environment and Public
Comment site: http://parkplanning.nps.gov.

Repeat after me… EASTERN STATES DON’T WANT OUR MIDWEST TRANSMISSION.

Once more with feeling… EASTERN STATES DON’T WANT OUR MIDWEST TRANSMISSION!!!

And they don’t give a rodent’s rump what we do with our transmission but THEY DO NOT WANT TO PAY FOR IT!

It’s not anything new, but it seems that the message is getting through all the way to Iowa.   Soon Minnesota? The message?  That the east coast does not want Midwest transmission, that they have their own renewables and not only that, they know that transmission from the Midwest means coal and, most importantly, THEY WILL NOT PAY FOR TRANSMISSION FOISTED UPON THEM.

The 7th Circuit case tossing out PJM’s cost apportionment scheme must be having an impact because everyone is freakin’ about cost allocation.  Again, GOOD!  The court said that PJM could not shove the costs of transmission on those who do not benefit from it:

Illinois Commerce Commission v. FERC - August 6, 2009

Enter the Coalition for Fair Transmission Policy, just launched today with a press conference in Washington, D.C.

Dig this from their site:

Assessment of National EHV Transmission Grid Overlay Proposals: Cost-Benefit Methodologies and Claims

HA!  I love it when that happens…

Here’s some background on our Midwest Transmission — transmission we don’t need and they don’t want:

JCSP & UMTDI in the news

This opposition to Midwest transmission is nothing new, I’ve entered documentation in the record in a couple of proceedings now, but what is new is that as of today’s “launch,” there’s now an industry group advocating against Midwest transmission, and that’s one utility interest I’m glad to see hopping mad as hell and not going to take it anymore!  GOOD!  Maybe that will help stop this stupid transmission-fest across the Midwest.

PUC Chair David Boyd had it right when he testified before Minnesota’s Legislative Energy Commission and led off with, “We need a business plan.”  Yes, that’s true, there is no business plan, and there is no MARKET for transmission.  I just hope that message gets through before “we” build and WE have to pay for all these wires in the air!

Here are a few recent posts of mine on this, followed by today’s article in the Des Moines Register.

Offshore transmission, NOT transmission from the Midwest

Eastern Governors stand up against transmission!

And today’s Des Moines Register article:

Eastern states balk at paying wind cost

By DAN PILLER • dpiller@dmreg.com • March 5, 2010

Much of the nation isn’t eager to help pay for a high-voltage transmission line to sell Iowa’s extra wind power to big markets east of the Mississippi River.

“If Iowa wants to build a transmission line for their energy, we have no objection. But Iowa or the Midwest should pay for it,” said Ian Bowles, secretary of energy and environmental affairs in Massachusetts. New England states want to produce their own wind energy from offshore farms.

A coalition of utilities in Eastern states will announce today their opposition to a 765-kilovolt transmission line, more than double the capacity of the current 345-kilovolt lines. The line would send electricity from the Dakotas, Iowa and Minnesota to Chicago and points east. Iowa is the nation’s second-largest producer of wind-generated electricity, behind Texas.

Such a transmission line won public support from President Barack Obama on his visit to Newton last April. It is a linchpin of the renewable energy policies of Gov. Chet Culver and Iowa’s largest electric utility, MidAmerican Energy of Des Moines.

Alliant Energy has its objections

Proposals by MidAmerican and ITC Holdings, which runs transmission lines in eastern Iowa, are considered the best chance for Iowa to reap a wind energy version of the financial windfall enjoyed by Texas and other oil- and gas-producing states.

But as wind energy becomes bigger and more corporate, the utility industry is divided even in Iowa.

Alliant Energy, which serves 525,000 customers in parts of northern, eastern and southern Iowa, has joined the newly organized Coalition for Fair Transmission Policy, which promises to fight a government-mandated transmission line from the Midwest.

“We don’t think the costs of transmission should be socialized,” said Alliant spokesman Ryan Stensland. Alliant’s wind energy production in Iowa is a fraction of MidAmerican’s.

Bruce Edelston, executive director for the Coalition for Fair Transmission Policy, said his group has formed to fight a proposal in the Senate to give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission authority to site and assess costs for a wind transmission line.

“We don’t think it’s necessarily a good idea to build a multistate transmission line,” said Edelston, whose group will hold a coming-out news conference today in Washington, D.C.

The Fair Transmission group represents companies serving 28 percent of U.S. electric customers, including utilities in New York City, Michigan, Indianapolis, New England, Pennsylvania, the Carolinas and Florida, New Jersey and Georgia.

Those states presumably would be among potential markets for the wind-generated electricity moved from the Dakotas, Minnesota and Iowa, which have the potential to produce far more wind energy than would be consumed there.

Other states have their own plans

While Iowa has speckled its countryside with wind turbines, other states have similar aspirations.

Atlantic seaboard states advanced plans for offshore wind farms, which they say would eliminate the need to ship wind-generated electricity from Iowa.

Michigan is studying a proposal for a wind farm in Lake Michigan, so it’s little surprise that two Michigan-based utilities are aligned with the Fair Transmission group.

MidAmerican Energy, already the largest investor-owned utility wind energy operator in the United States, recently won approval from the Iowa Utilities Board to add 1,000 megawatts more wind capacity to the 1,350 megawatts it already has. A megawatt can serve between 300 and 700 homes.

“Iowa leads the nation in growing corn and could lead the nation in providing wind energy,” said Dean Crist, vice president for regulatory affairs for MidAmerican Energy.

The extra 1,000 megawatts would add to MidAmerican’s surplus electricity production, which at times exceeds by 40 percent the normal demand of its 770,000 customers in Iowa.

MidAmerican earns extra money by selling that surplus to other utilities, which enables MidAmerican to freeze its residential rates for electric customers in cities including Des Moines, Waterloo, Davenport, Iowa City, Fort Dodge, Sioux City and Council Bluffs, through the end of 2013.

MidAmerican, in partnership with American Electric Power of Columbus, Ohio, is in the early planning stages to propose a multistate transmission line from Iowa headed east.

Such a transmission line would be new for the utility industry in the United States, which unlike railroads, airlines and oil and gas pipelines has historically confined its grid infrastructures within city limits or state boundaries.

Iowa energy officials say they knew going in that persuading the rest of the country to help pay for a transmission line wouldn’t be easy.

Roya Stanley, director of the Iowa Office of Energy Independence and Gov. Chet Culver’s representative on multistate electricity issues, recently told a gathering of Iowa municipal utility officials that “there is growing resistance to a multistate transmission line.”

“It comes down to who pays for it,” Stanley said, recounting rising difficulties in getting interstate agreements on cost-sharing for a transmission project.
Focus remains on unwanted costs

Darrell Hanson, an Iowa Utilities Board member who works with fellow electricity regulators from other states, has encountered the same blowback.

“If the only issue was just physically building the line, that would be easy,” Hanson said. “The difficulty is in figuring out how to share the costs. Nobody can do it alone.”

All isn’t lost for Iowa wind. MidAmerican’s planning group for its proposed Electric Transmission America line includes partner American Electric Power, which operates utilities in Ohio, and Exelon Corp., which owns utilities in Chicago and Philadelphia.

The cost of a multistate transmission line from the Midwest to the East Coast is unknown, but estimates begin at $20 billion.

An early assumption has been that more than two dozen states would share the costs in a manner similar to the way the entire United States shared in the cost of building the interstate highway system a half-century ago.

But Bowles, the Massachusetts energy secretary, rejects the comparison of an electric transmission line to the interstate highway system.

“There was an immediate economic benefit to the interstates,” he said. “There is no economic benefit to a transmission line unless someone wants to buy electricity from it. Many states like ourselves plan to become self-sufficient in renewable energy.”