The five rural co-ops of Southern Montana Electric Generation & Transmission Cooperative need new power quickly to replace power they are losing from the Bonneville Power Administration, (starting next year). So they decided to build Highwood, and that is moving fairly quickly, now isn’t it. When is it scheduled to go online? What does the contract say?
Great Falls City Manager John Lawton, who has taken a lot of heat over the city’s participation in the Highwood project, said he believes in wind power but that it is unlikely to be the total answer. “It has to be available and it has to be the right price,” Lawton said.
Yeah, like the coal plant. He added that the City of Great Falls will soon issue requests for proposals from wind-power companies and natural gas-fired plants to determine what other power sources may be available for the city’s Electric City Power arm.
Why? Because Highwood isn’t going to work for them? Because we didn’t get the deal we thought we were gonna?
Wind-power advocate and Cascade County Commissioner Peggy Beltrone contended that the Rural Utilities Service and the Highwood plant developer have been so focused on coal that wind has been given short shrift. Beltrone said part of the reason the federal agency dismissed the idea of wind power is because it “has only dealt with co-ops using coal.” I bet Peggy could answer some questions.
To create enough wind to equal the Highwood station’s output would require 18.6 square miles of land, covering 11,880 acres, the impact statement said. But why do we need to equal Highwood? The City needs to worry about the city, not the co-ops.
NorthWestern’s decision to purchase wind power from the 135-megawatt Judith Gap farm was far-sighted. Wind power from Judith Gap now costs the company between $42 and $46 per megawatt hour, after figuring in the costs of supplemental power. That’s a bargain-basement price with default electricity prices exceeding $55 per megawatt hour.
But our city didn’t even try. This was actually about the time the City was telling us we needed to buy instead of rent, and we needed to control our own destiny. These numbers are also similar to the first numbers that were given (at about the same time) for Highwood, which numbers have gone up, along with the price tag.
Lawton said in the article the Judith Gap wind farm did not exist when rural co-ops began planning to make up for a loss of cheap Bonneville Power Administration electricity that is scheduled to start in 2008. It may be true that Judith didn’t actually exist, but Northwestern still managed to get a contract, and that was before we began buying from SME.
Jacobson declined to discuss the cost of new wind power from Judith Gap. But conservation groups claimed in their recent lawsuit that firmed wind power from central Montana could still be had for no more than $45 per megawatt hour. Lawton called the claim “ridiculous,” saying the price of wind power has risen since 2005, when NorthWestern Energy agreed to buy wind power from Judith Gap for 20 years at about $31 a megawatt hour. Supplemental electricity, known as firming power, pushes the total cost to $42 to $46 per megawatt hour, according to Rapkoch.
Lawton said the city would be happy to snap up wind power at the old price. No, really? Would they? But they didn’t. “Will they sell it to us now for $42?” Lawton asked. Not a chance in hell buddy. Shoulda thought ahead. Not put all your eggs in one basket and stuff.
This part of the story bothers me.
Last week, two Great Falls city commissioners said they think the wind versus coal issue is more complex than wind advocates portray it. “This thing sounds so simple that you’d be doing it tomorrow,” said City Commissioner Bill Beecher. “There’s a catch someplace there.”
So last week two commissioners discussed it. Apparently, they came to the conclusion that the issue is complex, and at least Beecher has not investigated wind power at any length, in his time in office. There must be a catch in there, but our commissioners don’t know what it is. Shouldn’t they have some familiarity with the other options out there after all this time and effort? Lawton appears to know something; didn’t he clue in our commissioners? I thought they researched all the options years ago. How about ECP, havn’t they done any research? They do report to the Commission, don’t they?
Lawton said two major stumbling blocks for wind are cost and availability. He said it makes no sense for the city and SME to cancel plans for the Highwood station and “chase a ghost” — wind power.
Cost and availability. We do not yet know the cost of Highwood, or if the city will own any of it, or how long the City will have been chasing it, at the end… So how is it better? How is chasing the wind ghost better or worse than chasing the coal ghost? And how, pray tell, are cost ($180 million for 135mw=approx $360 million for 270 mw, vs $720 million for 250 mw) and availability (the wind?) of wind power any more difficult to ascertain than coal (approx $720 million to build plant, do we have a contract for coal?a set price for coal? do we have a price for rr cars? do we have a contract with BN for shipping?)
Just a couple years ago, it cost 180 million to build Judith, with output ranging from 135 megawatts to 150 megawatts.
And there is another one going up near Glasgow. Apparently someone has figured out cost and availability.
Wind Hunter, LLC.
In mid-November, the company submitted a revised right-of-way application to the BLM outlining proposed changes. Under the new plan, the wind farm would be built on 6,756 acres of land owned by the BLM, state School Trust and private parties. The 114 turbines would produce about 170 megawatts of electricity. (everyone who owns that land recieves royalties for the use of it.)
Wind isn’t with out problems. But obviously, building a coal plant isn’t either.
11 Responses to “”
1 Wolfpack 15 August 2007 @ 11:15 am
Nice article by the Gazette about wind power. It did a good job of explaining why wind can only be a piece of the puzzle. They could have gone into detail as to what firming power actually is (natural gas, excesses capacity from hydro or coal etc…). Can this be right “The Judith Gap turbines produce electricity 37 percent of the time.” as stated by the article?
2 Peggy Beltrone 17 August 2007 @ 11:36 pm
I would be happy to answer, or find an expert to answer any question you have about wind power. It is the most promising renewable energy source. The U.S. government is working to stimulate a 26-fold increase in wind power development over the next 23 years. If we think strategically as a state today, Montana will provide a significant portion of the nations wind energy and reap community and landowner economic benefits while making positive contributions to our environment and energy security.
Peggy Beltrone
3 Wolfpack 18 August 2007 @ 9:00 am
Commissioner Beltrone,
As I understand it, for wind power to continue as a growing energy source we need to develop firming power. Without new reasonably priced firming sources new windmills will not be economically practical and the problem will only get worse as new windmills come on line. What specifically are the most viable MT based firming sources that must be in place to encourage growth in our wind industry? Is it politically realistic for a significant portion of the tax revenue from the HGS to be dedicated towards renewable energy development or local conservation programs?
Thank You for you response.
4 LT 18 August 2007 @ 5:46 pm
Firming power = pumped storage generated from the wind farm when there is surplus capacity. Instead of pie in the sky deep well injected CO2 waste, compress air from wind power to drive turbines when the wind machines are still.
I am getting a little tired of the coal lobby distortion on firming power. What do you suppose firms up a coal plant when the boiler blows and 255 MW goes off line for 20 weeks?
It all sounds so logical the way they tell it and would have you believe. Pure BS.
5 wolfpack 19 August 2007 @ 12:14 am
LT- That’s one of the problems I have with wind, ideas like compressed air storage are put out there for the general public with no one questioning their practicality because of the unconditional love given to wind generation. Any first year engineering student can tell you that the thermal losses from gas compression (PV=nRT) would be huge unless you had a use for or storage capability for this intermittent heat energy. Without a complimentary firming power that has price stability wind generation investment grows riskier as demand for firming power grows. This leaves the need for MT to create it’s own firming energy for MT’s wind industry to be poised for continued growth. Maybe all coal plants should be mandated to dedicate some percentage of their capacity to this end. I have no idea if this is practical but that leads back to my original question to Commissioner Beltrone.
6 Peggy Beltrone 19 August 2007 @ 8:45 pm
Wolfpack,
Let me answer your questions with a preface. In late 2001, I toured a Canadian wind farm with other community leaders at the invitation of Exergy wind developer James Carkulis. (James ultimately developed the nine megawatt Horseshoe Bend wind park in Cascade County.) We trudged through the snow in bitter cold temperatures looking at equipment as it lay on the ground prior to installation. I was immediately sold on wind power and its economic benefits for our region. These high value machines could churn out clean power, lease payments for farmers and abundant tax revenue ($20,000+ per megawatt in the first year alone) for struggling rural areas. Wind power could increase our resources for rural roads, public health and schools.
Cascade County threw its efforts into wind power marketing and that program gained national attention. The upshot, I was invited to join the Department of Energy’s steering committee for Wind Powering America, its initiative to push wind power to scale in this country. I have had access to leading government and industry wind power experts in the most exciting time for this renewable energy. Since 2001, Cascade County has concentrated on wind marketing for it economic and tax benefits, not the end user of the power. Our biggest constraint is transmission and we have branched into promotion of new transmission to support the industry.
The proposed Highwood Generating Station has raised questions about wind vs. coal and because of our program, I am often asked questions that draw me into the making power source comparisons. This happened when Tribune reporter Rich Ecke started researching his recent wind vs. coal story. While I have definite environmental preferences for certain types of power, I am much more comfortable directing people to experts in this field and I suggested that Rich talk to Ed Demeo, who is the lead consultant designing DOE’s 20% wind energy by 2030 effort. Ed and I have spent many hours discussing wind and transmission. He is one of the country’s best. Not surprisingly, Rich had already found Ed. I asked Ed to give me a summary of his comments to Rich. They are so good, and I think helpful for your firming questions, I asked Ed for permission to post them here.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The following comments are from an e-mail Ed Demeo wrote to me August 1, 2007:
…the basic questions for discussion (for the Tribune story) are whether the proposed coal plant can be replaced with a wind plant, and whether the member cooperatives have given adequate consideration to wind.
I discussed my view that the two plant options are not directly comparable, and that neither by itself is “the best” approach. And that the issue is neither simple nor black and white. I described the issue primarily in terms of risk management: How can the utility consortium (SME) minimize its overall risks?
A decision to proceed with the coal plant (Highwood Generating Station, or HGS) brings two major risks: (a) an unplanned outage is nearly certain to cause loss of power to many customers, since it is a single plant supplying a large portion of the demand; and (b) the exposure to greenhouse-gas restrictions — nearly certain in my view in the near future (5 years or less) — and an associated increase in the cost of energy from the plant or reduction in plant output.
The wind plant would also bring risks: (a) the direct cost of energy could be a bit higher — although I countered that this is not necessarily true and would have to be examined more closely given that costs of power plants of ALL types are on the rise; and (b) the wind plant by itself could not be relied upon to supply the majority of their needs on a regular, predictable basis.
So how can SME best maintain system electric reliability while at the same time effectively managing all of their risks? I recommended a balanced approach that includes diversity in power-generation resources coupled with an expanded range of operating strategies. The latter could include such steps as (a) more — and more use of — interties with neighboring utilities; (b) sharing of system-balancing functions with those neighbors; and (c) adjustment of hydro operation strategies to mesh better with wind’s variations. And the diverse generation resources could include gas-fired plants with good ramping capability, wind, hydro, and even some coal. And these could all play together better as the size of the operating region grows. In addition, a group such as SME could offer some of its wind energy to neighbors who will also have a growing demand for low-carbon energy. As we all know, the Montana area has significant limitations in regional interties and in generation diversity and ownership options. Fixing these problems would greatly facilitate wind integration.
The long term objective is to plan and operate over a wider geographic region. Part of the strategy should be to include as much low-carbon energy as practical, and then fill in the remaining needs in whatever ways possible. The major problem with opting for the coal plant now with little consideration of alternatives is that a decision would be made that locks in a high carbon source (and the associated investment dollars) for perhaps 50 years, and puts off for many years the engineering analyses and action that would lead to the higher-flexibility, lower-carbon system of the future. I stressed that we need the power engineers — including those at SME — to help us work through these challenges. This is not a simple problem; but others are meeting the challenge, including the Europeans and some here in the US as well.
Finally, and returning to the theme of risk management, I mentioned what I would worry about as first a shareholder and then an officer of a utility opting today for a coal plant. As a shareholder, I’d worry about future regulation that either increases the cost of the energy from the plant (through a carbon fee, e.g.) or curtails operation of the plant. And as an officer, I’d worry about product liability when the general public figures out that utility managements knew about the carbon risk but chose to downplay it anyway in their system expansion decisions. Some of those chickens have come home to roost in the tobacco industry.
In sum, we had a good discussion, at least in my view. He (Rich Ecke) seemed very interested and well informed, and took the time to talk through the issues in a way that is characteristic of a conscientious reporter who wants to go beyond sound bites. In response to a closing question from him, I recommended that SME give serious consideration to a significant amount of wind as part of a broader solution to their power needs.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Wolfpack,
I hope Ed’s explanation of firming sources of Wind is helpful. I dare to summarize by saying we could firm wind by better coordinating existing generating sources from within and without our state and/or new gas-fired plants or other good ramping generation could be built. Ed pointed out flaws in our small control area that need to be fixed for many reasons, but could also help wind integration. Another expert told me that power dispatch enhancements and training could allow for more wind power in a system, but that is probably better explained in another post. I’ll save your politically realistic question for another post as well. This is too long.
Peggy Beltrone
7 Walter Greenspan 20 August 2007 @ 2:58 pm
Yeah, but, but none of the above is more efficent and has less environmental concerns than does nuclear generated electricity (which can provide the cheap power needed for the liquefaction of coal that would then replace gasoline, etc. etc., etc.).
8 Peggy Beltrone 20 August 2007 @ 8:13 pm
Wolfpack,
You earlier asked, “Is it politically realistic for a significant portion of the tax revenue from the HGS to be dedicated towards renewable energy development or local conservation programs?”
It is legally possible for City or County Commissioners to exercise discretion and identify projects such as renewable energy development or conservation within a budget. The County currently funds wind energy marketing and modest recycling. I believe the city funds co-generation at the sewage plant and recycling. These programs could be expanded while others you mentioned could be adopted through the annual budget process with additional tax revenue from HGS. I suspect you are asking whether Commissioners could make binding multi year budget commitments tied to the building of the HGS. I think that might be difficult since the Commissioners making the promise, may not be in office after the long construction period it would take to build the plant. I would be curious if a legislator thought it would be possible to pass legislation allowing local governments to make such commitments.
Peggy Beltrone
9 Wolfpack 20 August 2007 @ 8:21 pm
Commissioner Beltrone,
Thanks for the reply. Mr. Demeo’s email does a good job of laying out a multi-faceted approach to growing MT’s wind industry. It’s nice to hear a reasoned explanation of how wind fits into the overall energy portfolio (20% wind by 2030) of which coal is necessary but a last use alternative. Many wind proponents have an Alice in Wonderland view of wind and its suitability for all our energy needs. I agree wind in the near future will have great marketing potential for out of region eco-friendly buyers and MT should position itself to take advantage. I got the impression that numerous geographically distributed small wind farms are better than a few wind mega-farms for the transmission/regulating/balancing systems (cellular power?). Is this the direction you see us moving? Which governmental bodies do we citizens contact to encourage the transmission upgrades mentioned? I’m sure this topic needs all the supporters it can get because it is the least sexy issue in the power arena outside of the pocket protector crowd.
10 Wolfpack 20 August 2007 @ 8:39 pm
Commissioner Beltrone,
Sorry I missed your second post. With the ever advancing state of energy efficiency technology, a permanently dedicated conservation earmark would seem logical to offset environmental concerns in the area affected by a polluter. The pro-business types get a new industry and the pro-green types get funding for conservation the cleanest energy source of all. Win-Win. All we need now is a legislator to wade in.
11 Peggy Beltrone 21 August 2007 @ 10:33 pm
Wolfpack,
There are many political actors who influence transmission. Senator Baucus as Chair of Finance and Senator Tester on Energy are both important nationally on transmission issues. We will need congressional help for the full scale transmission build out of an interstate highway system magnitude.
Wyoming and other states have recognized the importance of state action and have instituted Transmission Authorities to help plan and fund new transmission. A Montana Transmission Authority bill was tabled in the last session. Legislators in wind rich areas understand the need for new transmission, but you are right, it has not caught fire with many legislators.
Governor Schweitzer has been active in transmission promotion at many levels, including the Western Governor’s Association Clean and Diversified Energy Initiative.
I have participated in the Rocky Mountain Area Transmission Study (RMATS) and know that Montana is under represented in these processes. We need to encourage more interest in Treasure State transmission AND we need to build these pathways in a fair and equitable manner.
Peggy Beltrone
Leave a Reply