Legalectric

Carleton’s wind turbine goes up (this photo may have been taken by Jonathan Larson, Bruce Anderson or ??? and not moi).

YEAAAAAAAAAA – The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission is going to address the concerns that many groups and individuals have raised about wind turbines, particularly the setbacks required to protect the health and safety of those living nearby.  First, the Minnesota Department of Health release a white paper:

MN Dept of Health – Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines

Now, following up on that, the PUC has issued notice of a comment period to address “PermitConditions on Setbacks and the Minnesota Department of Health Environmental Health Division’s White Paper on Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines.”  And here’s their notice — LOOK AT WHO IS ON THE SERVICE LIST, LOOK AT WHAT SERVICE LISTS THEY USED:

PUC – Notice of Comment Period 7-21-09

PUC – Notice WITH SERVICE LIST

The service list used are the ones for 04-1616, a docket regarding multi-state tracking and trading system for Renewable Energy Credits; and  03-869, a docket for electric utilities subject to Minn. Stat. 216B.1691.  Yup, that really gets it out there, doesn’t it… and the service lists for Bent Tree, Kenyon Wind, Clay County, New Ulm Utilities were NOT used… hence my first comment to be filed!

Overland Comments – Request for Broader Distribution of Notice

It’s very good that  they’ve opened this docket, that they even did that White Paper on Public Health Impacts of wind turbines, BUT that they’re only giving notice of this docket to industry parties is problematic to say the least.  Let’s do it right, PUC!

Last Thursday, July 9, there was a Wind Energy Forum in Wanamingo, the same Community Center where, about three weeks prior, there was a CapX 2020 scoping meeting.  This was sponsored by Southern Minnesota Initiative Foundation (Rich Huelskamp is part of that now?).

Noteworthy comments:

Dean Runde, Pioneer Prairie, when asked about turbine noise, said: “I’m surrounded by turbines, and I don’t hear a thing.  They’re half a mile away and I don’t hear a thing.”

Half a mile?  But of course you can’t hear them!  Try 800 feet, 500 feet!!!

The author of the Dept. of Health White Paper was on a panel also.  Here’s that report:

MN Dept of Health – Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines

The woman representing National Wind looked very unhappy.  Maybe it was the talk of setbacks, and I’m sure it was the talk of how developers are involving all the neighbors.  After all, Goodhue County has been a problem.  First, there was the ill-conceived “Kenyon Wind,” and then there was Goodhue Wind.  But what I found most enlightening, which I’m sure the National Wind folks wouldn’t like, was a Windustry handout about landowner leases which has a number of things for landowners to watch out for.  Here’s one that stands out:

7. Landowner should be careful about agreeing to the following types of provisions:

(a) Confidentiality provisions which prohibit Landowner from disclosing information pertaining to the
terms and conditions of the lease/easement.

Here’s the Windustry handout:

Windustry – Wind Energy Lease and Easement Agreements

Of concern — I’ve been hearing reports of non-disclosure provisions in Nicollet County, Bent Tree and Goodhue projects, but copies of the actual contracts have not been produced, so we’ll see…

And for some guidance, here’s a draft county ordinance regarding wind turbines that has a more reasonable setback:

Murray County Wind Energy Ordinance

Murray County did well in getting turbines set back far enough from roads, but I’d like to see more distance in basic setbacks.  Where they set setbacks at 3 or 5 rotor diameters, I’d like to see it at 3 or 5 total tower height (including up to tip of rotor when extended straight up).

Here’s the report from the Beagle:

Residents flood wind energy forum

WANAMINGO — Wind energy may be the wave of the future, but many Goodhue County residents still wonder what it means for them.

By: Jen Cullen, The Republican Eagle
RELATED CONTENT

WANAMINGO — Wind energy may be the wave of the future, but many Goodhue County residents still wonder what it means for them.

More than 150 people attended a wind energy forum Thursday in Wanamingo sponsored by the Southern Minnesota Initiative Foundation and the Southwest Initiative Foundation.

The agencies have collaborated to bring several wind energy forums to southern Minnesota communities.

“We need to get our brains around this, we need to get our minds around this,” said Tim Penny, president of the Southern Minnesota Initiative Foundation.

The forum focused mainly on community-based wind farm projects — those where local landowners are stakeholders.

A handful of wind energy companies — two of which were represented at Thursday’s forum — are interested in bringing such projects to areas like Kenyon, Cherry Grove, Goodhue and Belle Creek townships.

Representatives from competitors Geronimo Wind and Goodhue Wind, LLC., have been talking with residents for more than a year about putting wind turbines on land in the Goodhue area.

“Large firms want to build larger facilities,” Penny said. “We still think there’s an opportunity for some community-based projects that are smaller. But it’s not an easy path, it’s not a quick path.”

But it may be a more profitable path, said Eric Lantz, a member of National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s markets and policy analysis group.

Lantz evaluates the economic development impacts of wind power.

“It does look like community wind projects have a greater economic impact than absentee-owned projects,” Lantz said. “Perhaps that impact is not as great as stated by some, but there’s certainly a real advantage there.”

Lantz said research indicates community-based projects offer more jobs and funnel money back into the local economy.

Audience members peppered panelists with questions about everything from power purchase agreements to legal issues.

One even wondered just how “green” wind energy really is.

“The fuel source that powers the electricity that comes out of the turbines is air,” said Charlie Daum with Geronimo Wind. “To me that sounds like green energy, that feels like green energy.”

Iff we could harness the energy of Katie V. Troe!  Her work on the Bent Tree Wind Project has a measurable impact.  Here’s one example — the long awaited Minnesota Dept. of Health Wind White Paper has been released, and here it is:

MN Dept of Health – Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines

Here’s the short version:

The Minnesota nighttime standard of 50 dB(A) not to be exceeded more than 50% of the time in a given hour, appears to underweight penetration of low frequency noise into dwellings. Different schemes for evaluating low frequency noise, and/or lower noise standards, have been developed in a number of countries.

…

Unlike low frequency noise, shadow flicker can affect individuals outdoors as well as indoors, and may be noticeable inside any building. Flicker can be eliminated by placement of wind turbines outside of the path of the sun as viewed from areas of concern, or by appropriate setbacks.

Prediction of complaint likelihood during project planning depends on: 1) good noise modeling including characterization of potential sources of aerodynamic modulation noise and characterization of nighttime wind conditions and noise; 2) shadow flicker modeling; 3) visibility of the wind turbines; and 4) interests of nearby residents and community.

VII. Recommendations

To assure informed decisions:

• Wind turbine noise estimates should include cumulative impacts (40-50 dB(A) isopleths) of all wind turbines.

• Isopleths for dB(C) – dB(A) greater than 10 dB should also be determined to evaluate the low frequency noise component.

• Potential impacts from shadow flicker and turbine visibility should be evaluated.

Any noise criteria beyond current state standards used for placement of wind turbines should reflect priorities and attitudes of the community.

This seems to me to be recommending either local control of siting criteria that actually addresses these issues (and what county government will?) or state criteria change reflecting issues raised by local communities and recommendations that the people have brought forward.

I’d wondered why “The Economist” had shown up in my blog stats, and now I know.  But from the viewpoint of this article, it’s clear they didn’t do more than scratch the surface of transmission in the Midwest.  This is “party line” all the way — I hope they’ll now take the time to read NYISO and ISO-NE’s letter of withdrawal from publication of JCSP!

YOUR TURN!  Let them know what you think and why — the registration is instantaneous and easy, so COMMENT AWAY!

Spreading green electricity: A gust of progress

Apr 30th 2009 | CHICAGO
From The Economist print edition

Creating windpower transmission in the Midwest

FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT helped bring electricity beyond America’s cities to its most distant farms. Barack Obama hopes the countryside will return the favour. Much of this challenge rests in the gusty upper Midwest. In recent years Interstates 29 and 80, highways of America’s heartland, have teemed with lorries bringing wind blades to new plants. Efforts to build transmission have moved more slowly. There are 300,000 megawatts of proposed wind projects waiting to connect to the electricity grid, says the American Wind Energy Association. Of these, 70,000 megawatts are in the upper Midwest.

Now action is at last replacing talk. Firms are proposing ambitious transmission lines across the plains. The region’s governors and regulators are mulling ways to help them. The federal government is playing its part. In February the stimulus package allotted $11 billion to modernise the grid. Since then members of Congress have proposed an array of bills to develop transmission. Jeff Bingaman, chairman of the Senate energy committee, intends to start marking up transmission plans next week—though debate over other parts of the energy bill may delay progress.

America’s grid is complex: 3,000 utilities, 500 transmission owners and 164,000 miles (264,000km) of high-voltage transmission lines are stretched across three “interconnections” in the east, west and Texas. If wind is to generate 20% of electricity by 2030, as in one scenario from the Department of Energy, about $60 billion must be spent on new transmission. Just as important, regulations must change.

Historically, electricity has been generated close to consumers. Regulations are ill-suited for transmission across state borders. Rules for allocating a project’s costs burden local ratepayers rather than distant beneficiaries. One state’s regulators can scuttle a regional plan. The process for seeking approval from federal agencies is so disjointed and slow that pushing a line over a national park or river might as well be crossing the Styx.

American Electric Power (AEP) built a transmission line from West Virginia to Virginia in two years. The approval process had taken 14. “There are lots of people with authority to make pieces of the decision,” explains Susan Tomasky, president of AEP Transmission, “and no single entity that can say ‘yes’ or ‘no’.” Despite recent changes, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has limited power to make projects go faster.

Fortunately, officials have started to address these problems. In September 2008 the governors of the Dakotas, Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin formed an alliance to co-operate on regional planning. Midwest ISO, which supervises 94,000 miles of high-voltage lines, is considering ways to spread the costs of new transmission beyond local ratepayers and taking part in preparing a broad plan for the eastern interconnection.

Federal legislation will help too. Harry Reid, the Senate’s Democratic leader, Mr Bingaman and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota have offered three of the most prominent proposals. Each would require comprehensive plans for the interconnections, and would, to varying degrees, expand FERC’s authority to locate big new projects and allocate their costs.

Initiatives like this would help to encourage firms already eager to invest. Two of the most ambitious plans belong to AEP and to ITC Holdings, which each want to build lines from the upper Midwest to cities farther east. In April FERC offered ITC’s “Green Power Express” initial incentives to push the project along.

However, even quick progress in the world of transmission is slow. If all goes according to schedule—an unlikely thought— the Green Power Express would still not be in service until 2020. Fights in Washington are inevitable. FERC’s role in siting projects is controversial. More important, this debate may be bogged down by broader ones, such as the fight over a mandate to make a greater share of electricity from renewable sources. Meanwhile the winds whistle across the plains.

Another little birdie said that the MISO meeting to update everyone sitting in queue about their transmission plans was a bust… the good news, from my perspective, is that they don’t seem to be able to promise transmission for wind.  Projects are added and drooled over, but there’s always problems and it’s not going anywhere, the same problems exist throughout:

SPA Update & Constraint Mitigation Kickoff Feb 26 2009

At the meeting, they identified about 7 projects that might be able to make the transmission work from Group 6, one of which is Bent Tree I in Freeborn County.  But there’s bad news — it will only require 7 new 345 lines to make these projects work, including a double-circuited 345kV line 345 double-circuit from Lakefield Jct.  to Adams, extending the “Split Rock to Lakefield” as I expected since that 2002 SW MN 345kV project.  Essentially, they’re doing #9 of the WRAO Report.

So, to recap, they’re talking 7 – 345kV lines, some 765kV lines, they’re talking a SECOND double circuit of the Brookings CapX 2020 line… building massive transmission TO THE EAST COAST!

AAAAAAAAAGH!

When will they understand what NYISO and ISO-NE understand — that there is renewable energy there too — where’s the market?  And tranmission is no way to do this, there are better ways.  Applies to the Chicago market too:

Michigan looks offshore for energy

By GEORGE WEEKS
Syndicated Columnist

Michigan was the Arsenal of Democracy in the mid-20th century. Gov. Jennifer Granholm strives to make it an arsenal of alternative energy in the early 21st century.

“She wants Michigan to be the leader in every sector of energy,” Stanley “Skip” Pruss, director of the Department of Energy, Labor and Economic Growth, said in a phone interview Friday.

Pruss, former deputy director of the Department of Environmental Quality and an assistant attorney general under Granholm and legendary Frank Kelley, said Michigan could be a “game changer” in wind energy.

He revealed that Wisconsin Gov. James Doyle seeks “a collaborative effort” on generating energy from offshore windmills in Lake Michigan.

Offshore wind has more punch than onshore wind. And the deeper the water, the more the punch, so near-shore is not as potent as far out.

Last week, an extensive examination of the offshore issue in the Traverse City Record-Eagle had this alert: “Nothing’s imminent, but state and environmental regulators are preparing for the possibility that utility developers may want to harness wind power from Lake Michigan and other big lakes.”

Subsequently, seriousness of such offshore preparations was underscored at assorted state forums, including the Michigan Wind Conference in Detroit, where Jennifer Alvarado, executive director of the Great Lakes Renewable Energy Association, sought to “showcase Michigan’s potential in being a major player when it comes to wind energy.”