Legalectric

Why did it take so long for this to arrive here in the U.S., it took many years, and a release of a study pointing out the siting and efficiency advantages. Parking this here for future reference!

Why India’s Canals Could Help Fast-Forward Its Solar-Energy Plans

“Not only do they perform more efficiently, but because we can assume that the generated electricity is utilised in nearby areas, the transmission losses of (normally) 4% and distribution losses of 3% are avoided,” said Sagarkumar Agravat, head of GERMI’s solar research and development.

Apart from this, since the panels are placed on top of water, they are cooled from below, which also increases their efficiency and enhances output by 2.5-5%.

Renewable future: Gujarat govt to set up 100 MW solar power project atop Narmada canal

The ‘solar canals’ making smart use of India’s space

Overall, Gujarat has more than 80,000km of canals meandering through the state. According to Gujarat State Electricity Corporation, if 30% of this were converted to solar, 18,000MW of power could be produced, saving 90,000 acres of land.

This is not a new idea, a demonstration canal project was built in India in 2012:

Gujarat’s solar panels over canals project is a great idea for sustainable energy production

And almost a decade later, in California:

Study looks at covering California’s canals with solar panels

And the study:

Energy and water co-benefits from covering canals with solar panels

And in Popular Science:

Solar panels and water canals could form a real power couple in California

The Grant County Solar project docket proceeding at the Wisconsin Public Utilities Commission is moving towards a Commission decision. Yesterday, our Reply Briefs were due:

And the Initial Briefs:

Next step in the 9804-CE-100 docket, the Decision Matrix, which we comment on. The PSC should release that soon, it’s usually right after briefing.

For the PSC’s 9804-CE-100 Grant County Solar docket, GO HERE!

For the Wisconsin Power & Light docket umbrella over SIX solar projects, including Grant County Solar, 6680-CE-182, GO HERE! We filed a non-party brief in this docket – intervention was denied:

Whew, time to take a breather. We had two briefs due at 1:30 p.m. today, and got them filed with 1/2 hour to spare! Let’s hear it for the power of Doritos! (Only way I got through Contracts and Corporations in law school was a two-fisted supply of Doritos and Haagen Dazs)

Here are our Grant County Intervenor briefs. Here’s the one for the Grant County Solar docket focusing on the CPCN application for that one project, followed by Applicant-Grant County Solar/NextEra:

And our non-party brief in the WP&L acquisition docket for SIX solar projects covering over 5,400 acres, followed by the others:

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Solar is big in Wisconsin, as wind is in Minnesota, and like wind in Minnesota, there are no siting rules for solar in Wisconsin. A while ago, well, years ago, Jewell Jinkins Intervenors filed a rulemaking petition with the WI Public Service Commission:

Petition for Rulemaking_JJI_Solar

And lo and behold, as in Minnesota, they didn’t see any need for siting criteria and rulemaking and of course no need for rules requiring environmental review:

PSC Order_2-6-2019- Denial of Rulemaking Petition

And then yesterday, while strolling through the PSC Comment page, looking to assure that our solar docket comment option was working correctly, I found this:

WHAT?!?!?! And that was the 14th, comment period ends on the 15th! AAACK, one day.

Here’s the “Draft” of what PSC now thinks should be in an application for a solar project, and damned if it doesn’t bring up most of the issues we’ve been struggling to raise with the PSC for years now! READ THIS:

And so with nothing else to do… NOT…after getting 53 revisions of testimony and reformatting of exhibits, I got ahold of my Grant County and Badger Hollow clients and we teamed up to do comments, and I slammed this together this morning:

Do read the PSC’s proposal, it’s nothing short of amazing. The touch on all the issues, could be beefed up, but given all the difficulties we’ve had in getting issues a bit of consideration, and given the Commission’s rejection of our Rulemaking petition, like wow!!

Here’s everything filed in the docket as of today’s comment deadline:

PSC Docket 5-AFR-700 filings

On the other hand, their idea of who should be on the Service List is appalling, just the utility companies, municipal electric, and the usual toadies.

Solar AFR Mailing List

Earth to Mars, there are quite a few VERY LARGE solar projects going right now, how hard would it be to add all the intervenors and commentors to this list? This is 2021, the age of computers and electronic filing and hearings… JUST DO IT!

RIGHT NOW! It’s the PPSA Annual Hearing… sigh… here we go again.

Go to webex, Event # 146 311 2620. The powerpoint slides will be here (and will also be filed on eDockets).

To be able to comment, you have to get on the phone 866-609-6127, Conference ID: 4449079, and to comment, you need to press #1 and get in queue.

Here is the Commerce info about this year’s projects:

And for the record, folks, note that wind is not exempt from many of the parts of the PPSA: