by jboullion | Jul 23, 2013 | Uncategorized
Laura Ritger’s article for the Fond du Lac Reporter published last Friday provided an outline of the continued debate over the impact of wind turbines on human health. Demonstrating the misinformation frequently used to attack wind farms, Barbara Vanden Boogart of the Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy anti wind group incorrectly reported to Ms. Ritger that a health study had been conducted to assess the risk for cancer in Brown County residents near a local wind farm. Wisconsin’s renewable energy community was quick to identify and correct the misinformation used by Ms. Boogart’s group with wind energy expert Mike Barnard responding in Barnard on Wind and RENEW’s Michael Vickerman writing the following response to the Fond du Lac Reporter.
By Michael Vickerman
Dear Ms. Ritger:
You
recently wrote an article describing an effort on the part of certain
Fond du Lac County residents to advocate for a state-funded health study
analyzing impacts of utility-scale wind generators
on neighboring residents. Your article contained the following
sentence:
Barbara Vanden Boogart, representing Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy, spoke Wednesday
about health issues. She referred to a study
that measured increased cancer risk for people living in Brown County
homes near turbines and how some residents were compelled to leave their
homes.
The
highlighted statement is completely false.Yes, a team of acoustical
engineers took measurements of infrasound and low-frequency sound levels
at three houses near the
Shirley wind farm. The results were recorded and written up in a report
titled “A
Cooperative Measurement Survey and Analysis of Low Frequency and
Infrasound at the Shirley Wind Farm in Brown County, Wisconsin.”
While
these acoustical engineers are experts in their field,
their expertise does not extend into medical science. They took sound
readings, nothing more. Moreover, they were unable to persuade the owner
of the Shirley Wind Farm to shut down the turbines at any time during
the testing. Without a baseline sound reading,
it is impossible to determine to what extent, if any, the Shirley wind
turbines are responsible for any sounds recorded by this team. That
being the case, the statement is in error on two grounds:
1. This was an acoustical inquiry, not a medical inquiry.
2.
The measurements taken neither implicate or exonerate the Shirley wind
turbines for any readings taken, because they were always operating
during the testing.
It’s
quite a leap to interpret the data and conclude, as Ms. Vanden Boogart
did, that living near wind turbines increases the risk of contracting
cancer. No peer-reviewed
medical study I’m aware of connects wind generation to any illness or
disease recognized by the medical profession. Moreover, every reporter
who covers this issue ought to know that Wind Turbine Syndrome is not a
medically recognized phenomenon.
I
would ask that your newspaper issue a correction on this point. Ms.
Vanden Boogart completely misrepresented the report in question, and her
quote suggests that there
is a risk from wind generators when in fact none has been determined to
date by many researchers working around the world.
For
a balanced presentation of the Shirley report, please review the latest
post on Barnard on Wind, which sets the record straight on what the
Shirley infrasound report says and does not say.
by jboullion | Jul 18, 2013 | Uncategorized
In what could be the first third-party-owned solar electric system installed this decade in Wisconsin. Monona’s proposed four-array 156 kilowatt project could test the legality of third-party renewable energy installations in the state. Wisconsin’s murky policy regarding third party ownership combined with the economic growth experienced by states that expressly support it, emphasizes the need for clarification. Dan Haugen’s informative article with comments from RENEW’s Michael Vickerman provides a snapshot of the current debate in the context of the Monona project and what RENEW’s Clean Energy Choice proposal could do for projects like it.
By Dan Haugen
Can a Wisconsin city buy solar power from someone other than its electric utility? A Madison suburb may soon find out the answer.
The Monona City Council discussed Monday what could be a first-of-its-kind solar project in Wisconsin.
A private company would install solar arrays on four municipal buildings at no upfront cost to the city. The installer would then own and maintain the systems over the life of a contract and sell the renewable energy credits they earn to the city of Monona.
“The city has committed to being an energy-independent community and increasing our use of renewables,” Monona project manager Janine Glaeser said, “and this looks like a good way to do that without the upfront capital costs.”
One possible hitch: Wisconsin law is unclear about whether so called “third-party-owned” solar systems, in which neither the customer nor their utility owns the panels, are legal in the state.
[READ MORE]
by jboullion | Jul 16, 2013 | Uncategorized
Responding to decreasing solar energy systems costs, Stone House Development Inc. invests in a 117 solar panel setup above their new mixed use apartment building in Shorewood Hills. Phil Levin’s report for NBC 15 notes that projects like this could be just the beginning. Read the article below and watch the video report to learn more.
By Phil Levin
Local developers are reconsidering solar panel installations as prices drop and energy efficiencies rise.
The projects were previously prohibitively expensive as
pricey installations could take years to generate enough energy to
offset their cost. Commercial arrays can now pay for themselves in as
few as five years.
“If you are going to be owning the building for ten years
or more, you’re going to recoup those costs and the savings will keep
going another 15 plus years after that,” said Full Spectrum Solar
Founder Burke O’Neal.
His group installs the arrays on residential and commercial
buildings. They recently set up 117 panels above a new mixed-use
apartment building in Shorewood Hills called Arbor Crossing.
The panels will produce energy when the sun is out to power common area
utilities like lighting in hallways and the garage. In the middle of the
day the solar array might generate more energy than those circuits
need, causing the Madison Gas and Electric meter to spin backwards.
[READ MORE]
by jboullion | Jul 15, 2013 | Uncategorized
Utility Responses submitted to the Wisconsin Public Service Commission report that the electrical providers received far fewer requests to connect renewable energy systems to the energy grid in 2012 than in previous years. Read the press release below to learn what this means for utilities, energy consumers, and ultimately the future of renewable energy in Wisconsin.
Immediate Release —
In filings submitted to
the Public Service Commission (PSC), most of Wisconsin’s electric providers
reported that they handled far fewer customer requests in 2012 to interconnect
renewable energy systems to the grid than in previous years. Last year’s
decrease followed several years of steady growth in customer-sited renewable
energy installations.
The solar and small
wind energy sectors were hit hardest by this slowdown, while biogas installation
activity remained steady through 2012. Solar electricity systems account for
more than 90% of customer interconnection requests. “These reports confirm
our fears that ongoing utility resistance to customer use of clean energy is
sucking a lot of oxygen out of Wisconsin’s renewable energy marketplace,” said
Michael Vickerman, program and policy director for RENEW Wisconsin, a statewide
renewable energy advocacy organization. According to data
submitted by Milwaukee-based We Energies, the utility processed only 56
interconnection requests in 2012, compared with 120 requests in 2009, 146 in 2010, and 172 in 2011.
Green Bay-based Wisconsin Public Service and
Madison Gas & Electric also reported declines in customer-sited renewable
systems since 2011. According to Madison-based Wisconsin Power & Light,
interconnections involving renewable energy peaked in 2009 and 2010, and have
fallen off since.
“The slowdown in
Wisconsin stands in stark contrast to solar’s rapid expansion in other states.
This contraction is occurring in spite of declining installation costs and
higher electric rates,” Vickerman said.
Vickerman
attributed the fall-off in installation activity to a number of policy changes,
including
- Service
changes adopted by several utilities to make net metering a less economically
attractive option for customer-generators;
- Across-the-board
elimination of special buyback rates for solar-generated electricity; and
- Recently
adopted restrictions to the amount and availability of Focus on Energy
incentives for solar and small wind.
“Solar is a proven
generator of jobs as well as electricity. Lately, it seems that utilities are
doing their level best to keep solar out of their resource mix,” Vickerman
said.
“Other states such as
Minnesota and Georgia are warming to solar, because they see how this clean
resource drives business start-ups and investment opportunities. What will it
take for Wisconsin to see the light?” Vickerman asked. The
utility filings were submitted as part of a PSC investigation to determine
whether the state’s interconnection rules should be modified to facilitate more
customer-sited renewable energy systems. The docket number is 05-GF-233.
-END-
RENEW Wisconsin
is an independent, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that leads and represents
businesses, organizations, and individuals who seek more clean renewable energy
in Wisconsin. More information on
RENEW’s Web site at www.renewwisconsin.org.
by jboullion | Jul 12, 2013 | Uncategorized
Environmentalists, conservatives and solar startups celebrate as the influential state utility Georgia Power is mandated to expand the amount of solar energy it generates. The newly approved program requires Georgia Power to purchase solar power from solar firms, growing Georgia’s solar industry. Read Kiley Kroh’s article to learn about the Koch brother’s attempts to undermine conservative support for the initiative. Greg Bluestein and Kristi E. Swartz’s article below outlines Georgia’s path to an exciting future for the State’s energy consumers and solar energy producers.
By Greg Bluestein and Kristi E. Swartz
State regulators forced Georgia Power on Thursday to expand the amount of solar energy it generates, putting the company on the rare losing side of a political battle. But the vote was just a skirmish compared with bigger battles ahead for the powerful utility.
It faces a double-whammy of upcoming votes before the Public Service Commission on approving new costs for its nuclear expansion project and a proposed 6 percent rate hike to fund new equipment. And a legislative fight looms over a proposal to create a new solar monopoly that could challenge Georgia Power’s grip on state utilities.
The all-Republican commission’s 3-2 vote was a significant defeat for the Atlanta-based company, which had warned it already generated more than enough energy for its customers. Opponents also said that adding 525 megawatts of solar by 2016 would inevitably drive up rates, although Georgia Power, in a surprising about-face, backed off that argument on Thursday after months of making that case. Instead, its attorney said for the first time that the added solar likely wouldn’t affect power bills.
In the aftermath of Thursday’s vote, the odd coalition of environmentalists, conservatives and solar startups behind the expansion barely paused to savor their win. Some emboldened activists said the victory gave them new hope they could successfully challenge the utility on other contentious issues.
[READ MORE]
by jboullion | Jul 11, 2013 | Uncategorized
To: Clean Energy Choice Supporters
From: Michael Vickerman
Date: July 10, 2013
Our grassroots campaign is beginning to catch the attention of utilities. Shortly after one county board passed a resolution in support of Clean Energy Choice, a utility representative contacted a board member and expressed his company’s dismay over the vote. This representative said that the reason utilities oppose Clean Energy Choice is that third party arrangements enable customers to use less utility-provided energy, which reduces revenues to utilities. The result is that the fixed costs associated with utility electric service are spread over a smaller rate base, which drives rates higher.
Let’s examine this argument in greater depth.
First, the argument can be applied with equal force to customer-owned self-generation. The impact from a rooftop solar electric system to utility revenues is the same no matter who owns the system. If the solar system results in a 50% reduction in electricity consumed by the customer, that reduction is based on the amount of energy produced by the system relative to the amount of grid-supplied electricity consumed by that customer. The question of who owns the system is immaterial to that calculation.
Of course, the same argument could be levied against energy efficiency. If a retrofit of a building’s lighting system results in a 40% reduction in electricity usage, that reduction would be the same whether the new lights are owned by the building owner or by a third party service provider like Johnson Controls, which is in the business of saving customers money by reducing their consumption of energy. It’s interesting, though, that utilities are careful not to complain about energy efficiency’s impact on their rates, even though a kilowatt-hour (kWh) not consumed as a result of efficiency has the same effect on utility revenues as a kWh produced behind the meter and consumed on site. As with self-generation, the question of who owns the efficient lighting system does not affect the outcome.
Now, if the utilities figure out a way to overcome their basic hang-ups about solar energy, and resolve instead to provide solar-generated kWh to their customers who desire such a service, we wouldn’t be having this argument. There is nothing to prevent a utility from offering a voluntary solar service to customers. This service could be provided to any customer who wants their electricity to come from sunshine, including those who don’t have any access to sunshine on their premises and thus cannot host PV systems themselves. This is one group of potential solar customers that only the local utility can serve in a rate-regulated environment. Remember, a utility can place solar systems anywhere in its distribution system to serve individual customers who are willing to pay for such a service. But they have decided, at least for the time being, to remain fully committed to a fossil fueled future, to the point of obstructing customer efforts to supply themselves with solar energy. In so doing they are walking away from a golden opportunity to serve large subset of customers with solar energy that, due to shading or suboptimal roof orientation or lack of space, cannot be produced on their premises.
It should be remembered that customers who reduce their consumption of fossil generated electricity through efficiency and on-site renewables furnish fellow utility customers the health and sustainability benefits of clean, non-CO2 producing electricity free of charge. The economic reward to system hosts from these pathways comes from bill savings, nothing more. If the utilities are willing to engage in a serious discussion on a fair allocation of costs and benefits, they must acknowledge the need to incorporate adverse health and environmental impacts into the cost of electrical service, and not leave that particular tab to taxpayers.
Summary: the question of system ownership is irrelevant to utility rate impacts. Energy conservation and on-site generation have the exact same impact on rates. If on-site generation is undesirable from a ratepayer perspective, then so is energy conservation, if we extend the utility argument to its logical end point. And, lest we not forget, third-party contracts for renewable energy fill a void created by utility unwillingness to serve their own customers with clean resources that have demonstrated market appeal.
With each passing day, the battle lines between the solar community and utilities resistant to solar continue to sharpen, as evidenced by the four dispatches below.
by jboullion | Jul 10, 2013 | Uncategorized
Rosendale Dairy’s University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh funded biodigester is predicted to supply 1,200 homes with electricity. Read Tom Content’s article to learn how the BIOFerm headed project will help the University achieve it’s goal of reaching carbon neutrality by 2025.
By Thomas Content
A $7 million waste-to-energy manure digester will be built at Rosendale Dairy in Pickett, in a collaboration between the dairy, renewable energy firms and the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh.The project, kicked off Tuesday, consists of a large biodigester energy facility, learning laboratory and a public education center at Milk Source’s Rosendale Dairy, the state’s largest dairy farm with more than 8,000 cows, located in Fond du Lac County.
The project is being funded by the UW-Oshkosh Foundation in support of the climate emission targets and sustainability education efforts in place at the university.
The digester, to be completed by the end of the year, will use methane from livestock waste to produce electricity that will be sold to the electric power grid through an arrangement with Madison-based Alliant Energy Corp.The digester is expected to generate 1.4 megawatts of electricity, or enough to supply about 1,200 typical homes, according to BIOFerm Energy Systems of Madison, which is overseeing the project.
UW-Oshkosh plans to tap carbon credits from the renewable power generated at the site to help it fulfill its climate change emission reduction commitment.“The campus hopes to also use it go help us greatly accelerate our carbon neutrality goal, which was 2025,” said Alex Hummel, UW-Oshkosh spokesman. “Early estimates from when we were sizing up the collaboration show we could reduce that to about 2017 or 2018.”
UW-Oshkosh and BIOFerm opened a first-of-its-kind dry fermentation digester, about one-seventh the size of this project, in 2011. The digester converts food waste and yard waste to energy.
Partners in the project include BIOFerm and its Germany-based parent company, Viessmann Group, as well as Alliant Energy and Madison-based Soil Net.BIOFerm also is the developer of a third area project, a small family-farm-scaled digester that is currently in the pilot stage that also processes livestock waste.
by jboullion | Jul 1, 2013 | Uncategorized
In an interview with Wisconsin Public Radio, company spokesman Brian Manthey attributes low natural gas prices and orders from a Midwest power supply operator to the plant’s low operation but Michael Vickerman notes that this is only part of the story. Read or listen to Chuck Quirmbach’s story to learn how rate payers are absorbing the costs of the plant’s low operation.
By Chuck Quirmbach
As part of its ‘Power The Future‘ project a few years ago, WE Energies was allowed to build 1,200 megawatts of new coal-fired generating capacity near an existing power plant in Oak Creek. The new plant is called the Elm Road Generating Station. WE Energies concedes the plant only operated about 20 percent of the time last year. Company spokesman Brian Manthey says that’s due to orders from a Midwest power supply operator and low natural gas prices that made it cheaper to boost operation of a gas-fired plant. But Manthey says the Elm Road plant really cranked up when the weather got very hot last summer.
“The two new units actually at times were operating beyond their rated capacity, at a time when there was power needed from every possible source in the Midwest.”
Manthey says with natural gas prices going up this year, he expects the Elm Road plant to run more. He says it’s available to generate power more than 90 percent of the time. But Michael Vickerman, of Renew Wisconsin, says WE Energies rate payers still have to keep paying for Elm Road, and aren’t getting much for their investment.
[READ MORE]
by jboullion | Jun 28, 2013 | Uncategorized
Worried over their ability to compete with solar energy installers like Dubuque-based Eagle Point Solar, Alliant Energy continues to throw legal roadblocks in the path of third party-owned solar. Wall Street Journal reporter Ryan Tracy identifies the far reaching implications of the dispute with input from RENEW’s Michael Vickerman.
By Ryan Tracy
Disputes over the use of small-scale solar power are flaring across the nation, with utilities squaring off against solar-energy marketers over rules for the growing technology.Until now, the fights have been mainly before state regulators. In California, Louisiana and Virginia, utilitieshave sought to cut what they claim are unfairly high payments they are required to make to owners of homes or larger buildings with solar systems.
At issue in an Iowa lawsuit is whether solar-system marketers can sell electricity in territories where localutilities have exclusive rights to customers. Such an arrangement isn’t allowed or is under dispute in many states, limiting solar firms to sales of panels to homeowners and businesses.
But if they win in Iowa, it could pave the way for fledgling solar industries to expand in other states. The case is being watched closely elsewhere in the Midwest, where policies granting utilities a monopoly on electricity service are one reason a solar-construction boom hasn’t occurred, unlike in states such as California and NewJersey.
Utilities “are proponents of renewable energy,” said Barry Shear, president of Iowa’s Eagle Point Solar LLC, but only “if they own the energy assets and the electrons flow through their grid and they can bill you.”
In March, an Iowa District Court judge said Mr. Shear’s 18-employee company could sign power-purchase contracts in the Dubuque territory of Alliant Energy Corp., one of the state’s largest utilities. Under the disputed deal, Eagle Point would own solar panels on the roof of a Dubuque municipal building and sell powerto the city at a rate similar to Alliant’s.
The disputed Dubuque deal employed a “third party” ownership arrangement, in which a rooftop solar system is owned by someone other than the property owner. Solar deals using that structure are growing inpopularity — for both residential and commercial properties — because they allow building landlords or homeowners to tap into solar power without a significant upfront investment.
Judge Carla T. Schemmel, overturning an Iowa Utilities Board decision, said Eagle Point could sell solarelectricity to the city without encroaching on a utility‘s lawful turf. She noted that the city would still need to buy electricity from Alliant when the sun isn’t shining. “Eagle Point is neither attempting to replace [the utilitynor] sever the link between [the utility] and the city,” she wrote. “It is simply allowing the city to decrease its demand for electricity from the grid.”
Alliant says the ruling contradicts Iowa’s policy of not allowing competition for electricity service. “They were going to be selling energy to one of our customers,” said Kim King, manager of the renewable-energy program at Alliant, in an interview.The ruling was a defeat for Berkshire Hathaway Inc.’s MidAmerican Energy Co. unit as well. MidAmerican, another Iowa utility that had sided with Alliant in the case, told the judge in January that if the utilities lost, it could lead to “a proliferation of solar installation in the state.”Alliant and MidAmerican are appealing to the state Supreme Court. They say their problem isn’t with solarplants — each utility already connects to about 100 small-scale renewable-energy systems. Instead, they say they have a problem with the way the deal between Eagle Point and Dubuque was arranged. “This is not a dispute about solar energy. This is about a disagreement in the requirements under Iowa law,” said Tina Potthoff, a MidAmerican spokeswoman, in an email.
MidAmerican said in May that it may be capable of generating about 39% of its electricity from wind farms by 2016, making it one of several utilities with large renewable-energy portfolios.
But many of those same utilities have objected to policies they say are too friendly to small-scale renewable-energy generation. NextEra Energy Inc. says it generates more electricity from the wind and sun than any other U.S. company. But its Florida Power & Light unit opposes allowing solar-system marketers to sell electricity to the unit’s Florida customers. A spokesman for FP&L said the utility doesn’t oppose solar, but Florida law doesn’t allow “third party” sales.
In Wisconsin, the question of whether solar-panel marketers can sell power in another utility‘s service territory is likely to be tested this year, said Michael Vickerman, program and policy director for Renew Wisconsin, a group that advocates use of solar power in that state. “If the utility objects, we may go down the same route that we saw in Iowa,” he said.
by jboullion | Jun 25, 2013 | Uncategorized
Madison recycling coordinator George Dreckmann’s $20 million dollar proposal for a city-run biodigester and corresponding household organic refuse collection program could offer educational opportunities and ultimately reduce city landfill expenditures. Read Pat Schneider’s Capital Times article below to learn more.
By Pat Schneider
Melon rinds, chicken bones, even pizza delivery boxes: Three years from now Madison residents could be putting them all curbside in a third household bin for collection and transfer to a city-run biodigester where they would be converted into biogas and compost.
That’s if the City Council approves $20 million — and the “yuck” factor doesn’t kill city recycling coordinator George Dreckmann’s proposal.
Dreckmann included expenditures for a citywide organic waste composting program — including construction of a biodigester — in a 2014 capital budget proposal sent Friday to Mayor Paul Soglin.
If the funding is approved and the digester is built on the proposed schedule, Madison would be among the first U.S. cities to run its own digester for residential organic waste, Dreckmann said.
[READ MORE]
