Legalectric

.

And the pitch?  Nothing new, just RE-AMP toadying for utilities, but I’m waiting for Howard “The Slow” Learner to prove me right, again… and to see how far they go to promote transmission.

April 20 & 21st is Learner’s/Environmental Law & Policy Center‘s and RE-AMP’s “invitation only” transmission strategy workshop, at their office in Chicago, and I surmise much about their goal and strategy based on my many past experiences with transmission promoters.  This meeting is very unlike the Sierra Club transmission strategy meeting in West Virginia last spring, a great group of people who understand the purpose of transmission, were actively engaged in fighting it and who have been successful in slowing down that big web of 500kV/765kV lines known as Project Mountaineer.   Here in the Midwest, it’s a little different.  An example:

The ELPC has also been working with the South Dakota Energy Infrastructure Authority to develop and expand transmission lines across South Dakota. They will also work with neighboring states to develop new approaches for more transmission. The available wind energy in South Dakota is far greater than the state’s electricity needs, so the ability to move this power out of the state is crucial.

What is ELPC doing to develop and expand transmission?  Transmission lines across South Dakota moving this power out of state means it comes into Minnesota — funny how that works.  What is ELPC doing about the coal plants in queue in the Dakotas?

What is the goal of ELPC’s invitation-only Transmission Strategy Meeting?

Anyway, it was no surprise to me — Learner saw I was on the list and has slammed the door in my face!  Imagine that!  SNORT!  It seems that people with a lot of working knowledge of transmission, knowledge of history, and knowledge of the parties involved are not welcome.  Specifics on this meeting are below.

Don’t drop the ball, Howard!  Will Howard Learner and ELPC be the utilities’ water boy for transmission that’s planned stretching from the Midwest to the East Coast or acknowledge that more big transmission is not needed or wanted?  And why would anyone want to advocate for transmission to the East Coast if the East Coast doesn’t want it?  Will they respect the East Coast’s solid “NO!” to Midwest transmission?  How ethno-geo-centric will they be?

Here are a few posts with links to the primary documents of NYISO & ISO-NE, NY’s Deputy Secretary of Energy, the 10 Mid-Atlantic Governors letter, etc.

DUH… eastern states don’t want our transmission

Offshore transmission, NOT transmission from Midwest

Eastern Governors stand up against Transmission!!!

The windup?  Today’s Chicago Tribune has a disturbing article about transmission, foreshadowing the meeting three weeks from now:

Putting wind generated power where it’s needed

For example, from the article:

In order to integrate and move that alternative power east through Illinois, the grid would have to be expanded and upgraded, say transmission experts and utility companies.

The estimated cost to move that wind power east could range from $64 billion to $93 billion in 2009 dollars and would require 17,000 to 22,000 miles of transmission lines to be built in the eastern half of the country alone, according to the Eastern Wind Integration and Transmission Study (EWITS) published in January and prepared for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Just a reminder, Matt Schuerger who worked on this EWITS (or “nitwits”) study is the same one who, together with Beth Soholt, asked me and several others to sell out on the SW MN 345kV line.  At that time, he was at ME3 (after a stint at District Energy) and is listed as a consultant on Izaak Walton 990s, and Beth Soholt, Izaak Walton League (formerly of MAPP).  FYI – Wind on the Wires is a GRANT, not an organization — it’s listed on the Izaak Walton 990s as a “program” despite having a Minnesota non-profit established (CLICK HERE for Secretary of State link).  From May, 2001 NWCC minutes:

Matt Schuerger is, in 2022, a 2nd term Commissioner at Minnesota PUC (notice his bio doesn’t mention his working for Waltons, ME3/Fresh Energy, and Wind on the Wires!).

2008-Izaak Walton League 990

2007-Izaak Walton League 990

2006-Izaak Walton League 990

2005-Izaak Walton League 990

2004-Izaak Walton League 990

Color me naive, I really didn’t have a clue (other than the enviros’ obscene deal on Prairie Island in 1994) until that meeting in question, it was on or about Sept. 8, 2001, when Beth and Matt asked about 6-7 of us who were likely intervenors in that docket to sell out.   “What would you need to approve of this line?” (the SW MN 345kV line, PUC Docket 01-1958).  I asked what they were getting and what they’d share, and what they were getting was pissy and they got pissier the more questions I asked, particularly Matt, who made empty threats about walking out — DUH, please, leave!  The most important question they didn’t address was, “What about the big long list of coal in queue on p. 29 of the study, waiting for the transmission that they were promoting?”  Defensive pissyness, unwillingness to address the big picture, and silence.  Schuerger and Soholt, they were so B Squad about it that afternoon at the Loring Cafe, Dinkytown, in 2001.  That was the year that “Wind on the Wires” got $4.5 million to promote transmission.  That amount was ramped up for the next grant, and the focus of their deal became clear when one agreement was posted on the TRANSLink docket.  A o coupfle days later, “Wind on the Wires”  got an Energy Foundation/McKnight grant of $8.1 million.  $8.1 MILLION! Hmmmmm…

The Energy Foundation/McKnight funded and orchestrated promotion of transmission has been shameless, as bad as the enviro support for coal gasification, their transmission efforts ranging from attempts to gain endorsement of the regional SEED group (organizations that as a whole knew nothing about transmission) to legislative “it’s a deal, a package deal and it’s a good deal” changes desired by utilities, to NWCC “concensus building” to supportive intervention in transmission dockets.  That agenda continues despite clear evidence that midwest transmission supports coal, our RES that does not link an increase in renewables with a decrease in coal, MISO policy that has a goal of displacing natural gas with coal (see “Conclusions” in ICF – Midwest ISO Benefits Analysis) , and decreased demand and a conservation mandate, such that transmission is not needed now and probably not needed ever.  Whose interests are these organizations acting in?  Their interests, their funders’ interests.  Where’s consideration of the public interest?

What did they agree to back then?  Here’s one example that’s public:

Settlement Agreement – ME3(Fresh Energy), Izaak Walton League, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, North American Water Office

Take a closer look at “Wind on the Wires” that is a subset of the Izaak Walton League.  Do members and chapters of the Izaak Walton League have a clue what this organization is advocating?  Though there is a Minnesota “non-profit” registered, as above, it remains a “program” on the Izaak Walton League IRS 990s and Beth Soholt is an employee of the Waltons.  From the website, here’s the address, same as the Waltons:

Office Location

Wind on the Wires
1619 Dayton Avenue, Suite 203
St Paul, MN 55104
(651) 644-3400

Their list of  WOW Staff and Consultants:

Beth Soholt
Director, Wind on the Wires

Linda Brewster
Administrative Associate, Wind on the Wires

Matthew Schuerger, P.E.
Technical Consultant

Natalie McIntire
Technical/Policy Consultant

And take a look at who is on the board of “Wind on the Wires”, why the whole family is there:

Board Members
R.T. “Hap” Boyd
GE Energy

Hans Detweiler
American Wind Energy Association

Joe DeVito
RES – Americas

Tom Feiler
Clipper Windpower

Richard Free
John Deere Wind Energy

Bob Gough
Intertribal Council on Utility Policy

Ian Krygowski
enXco

Howard Learner
Environmental Law and Policy Center

Kevin Lynch
IBERDROLA RENEWABLES

Michael Vickerman
RENEW Wisconsin

(And would you look at that, Rick Free?!?!  Too funny — I’ve got to tell Nancy Prehn what Rick Free is up to since we killed his Simon Industries gas plant in Waseca!)

And the pitch:

The ELPC Midwest Transmission Strategy Meeting.  The shameless Energy Foundation funded (and is this also McKnight Foundation funded?)  and orchestrated promotion of transmission continues.  First, on March 5th this appeared in my inbox:

Colleagues –

1.  We appreciate the Energy Foundation’s grant support to cover reasonable travel/hotel costs for individuals and organizations that may need assistance in order to attend this important regional meeting.

2.  Please call/email Kay Tamillow at ELPC (312-795-3709, ktamillow@elpc.org) for information on the favorable hotel rate that ELPC has obtained and to make reservations.

3.  Please RSVP to attend if you’re interested and have not yet done so.

Best wishes,

Howard
———————————

Midwest/Great Plains Environmental, Clean Energy and Consumer Colleagues,

Please join us for a Midwest Transmission Strategy Meeting on April 20 (dinner) and April 21 (full day), 2010 in Chicagoat the Environmental Law & Policy Center’s conference space, 35 East Wacker Drive.  New major interstate transmission lines in the Midwest/Great Plains are a double-edged sword:  On the one hand, they can provide additional needed delivery capacity for wind power and other new renewable energy development; on the other hand, they can provide enabling delivery capacity and lifelines of support for the continued operation of old highly-polluting coal plants.  We will be developing strategies to advance the former and avoid the latter.  We will also address important cost-allocation issues for new transmission.  Please RSVP to Kay Tamillow at ktamillow@elpc.org or 312-795-3709.  More info to follow on hotel, etc.

The purposes of the strategy meeting are to: (1) Bring together Midwest environmental, clean energy and consumer leaders to learn together and get up-to-speed on key transmission strategy and policy issues, (2) Set the strategic framework for what types of transmission lines we will support and which not, and what we can and should do through advocacy; and (3) Initiate strategic discussions and actions on high-leverage transmission advocacy targets in the Midwest/Great Plains states.

The importance of new transmission capacity to support wind power development is relatively clear. There is a less obvious and equally important goal of relating transmission advocacy to spur the retirement of old, highly-polluting coal plants in the Midwest/Great Plains states. There is a very important set of strategic leverage points because of the structure of the Midwest/Great Plains power market in 2010 – 2020.

The framework for the agenda is as follows below. We will distribute a final agenda closer to the meeting date.

April 20th, 5:30 pm. – 8:30 pm:
Dinner Meeting and Briefing with wind industry and transmission line developers presenting.

April 21st, 8:30 am – 4:30 pm:
Morning: Strategy briefing and short course on key transmission issues and opportunities for environmental, clean energy and consumer advocates.

Afternoon: Strategy planning and discussion on: (1) Engagement/intervention in key policymaking forums: FERC, MISO, State PUCs, Public Outreach; and (2) Focus on Pros/Cons and potential challenges to particular transmission line proposals in Midwest/Great Plains region.

The agenda planning group includes:

Citizens Utility Board (Illinois) – David Kolata
Energy Foundation – David Wooley and Ben Paulos
Environmental Law & Policy Center – Howard Learner and John Moore
Fresh Energy – Michael Noble
Kresge Foundation – Lois DeBacker
Michigan Environmental Council – James Clift
Wind on the Wires – Beth Soholt

Please RSVP to Kay Tamillow at ktamillow@elpc.org or 312-795-3709.  More info to follow on hotel, etc. ELPC is working to obtain foundation support to cover reasonable travel costs for individuals and organizations that may need assistance.  Please indicate in your response if you will need reimbursement of reasonable travel costs.

We all understand the strategic importance of this meeting and the issues to be discussed. Thank you in advance for you participation and engagement. Please let me know if you have any questions or suggestions.

Best wishes,

Howard

Howard A. Learner
Executive Director
Environmental Law & Policy Center
35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 1300
Chicago, Illinois 60601
email:  HLearner@elpc.org
phone: (312) 673-6500
Please visit ELPC’s website at www.elpc.org

And of course knowing what they’re up to, I signed right up right after I got it, and Alan did too.   We’re all set!  Then, on the 16th, I get this, from Howard Learner:

Howard Learner wrote:

Carol and Alan,

I’m writing to let you know that the Transmission Strategy Meeting on April 20-21 is a “by invitation only” strategy session among a group of directly invited environmental – clean energy – consumer colleagues, rather than an open conference or seminar event.  Members of the planning group for this particular strategy session have asked that we limit attendees to those directly invited.  Although my assistant Kay Tamillow did receive your RSVP, we’ll ask that you not plan to attend.

Thank you for understanding,

Howard

Howard A. Learner
Executive Director
Environmental Law & Policy Center
35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 1300
Chicago, Illinois 60601
email: HLearner@elpc.org
phone: (312) 673-6500
Please visit ELPC’s website at www.elpc.org

So here’s my response to Howard’s email:

Howard –

Interesting — I  think I understand some things and don’t understand others. I do know that I am thinking that the “plan” is getting more and more interesting…

The Sierra Club had an excellent transmission strategy planning meeting in West Virginia last spring of those intervening in transmission dockets, attorneys, expert witnesses, and advocates from both coasts regarding their focused and effective efforts. I think I shall regard your missive as confirmation that your strategic plan and goal is quite different from that of Sierra.

But many questions remain…

Carol A. Overland
Attorney representing clients in transmission cases across the country for 15 years now

We’ll see how this goes!

It’s my old neighborhood, and I just had to put my $0.02 in:

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…

AVA Goodhue Wind has applied for a Certificate of Need and a Routing permit, and there are two Power Purchase Agreement dockets open at the PUC.  To see what’s been filed:

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.

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.
Read the rest of this entry »