Energista - Hydroelectric - Comments

whoops

Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:23:48 -0500

forgot to log-in - that comment is mine.

farmers

nobody — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:20:01 -0500

Rane & I had a class debate on this issue - part of the problem is also the water provided for irrigation by the dams. Many of the areas in the NW do not receive enough rain to support agricultural endeavors, thus they rely on irrigation. It is a complicated issue, so I agree with you, Joe, that it makes sense to take it on a case-by-case basis. I wonder whether it is an issue that will have a successful compromise, though, since the participants seem sharply divided and have been for years.

It will displace a little baseload

Joe — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 16:44:26 -0500

The company must have some analysis showing that it is economical, or they wouldn't pursue it. Also, according to my understanding, it could displace some baseload - the output of coal plants can be cranked up or down (nuclear can't) to follow load, meaning running the dam overnight could allow the baseload coal plants to burn less coal overnight. Though we're probably only talking a few megawatts here, so it may not be worth doing if it jeopardizes the ruins or is an eyesore.

not sure how it pencils out

mhenergyguy — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 23:27:17 -0500

I am surprised the project is economically viable. Since it will run off-peak, it really won't displace baseload - because baseload is basically running 24x7 and, first and foremost, has to run during peak times. The value of the off-peak energy, therefore, is low. Even with the various renewable energy credits, given that the water levels seem pretty erratic, I wouldn't think it would be very economic.

darrell — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 10:44:24 -0500

Just to tie into a previous posting on this project.

RES Penalty

christopher — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 20:22:08 -0600

Thanks Jesse, I've been trying to follow what you all are doing out there as well. At a committee hearing, a deputy commissioner from the Department of Commerce said the $.05 per kw/hr was becoming a standard more or less for the standards.

We also have the offramp provision in some RES bills, I'm trying to write an article about that now.

5 cents/kWh penalty

nobody — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 14:03:06 -0600

Thanks for the update on RES efforts in Minnesota, Christopher. I'm actively involved in working on crafting and passing an RES in Oregon (the bill will go to committee in the Oregon Senate in a week or two), and it's interesting to see what other states are doing.

As for the 5 cents/kWh (or $50/MWh) penalty being a bit steep, I think that is pretty standard for states that have adopted penalties (as opposed to alternative compliance payments, or other options for dealing with utility shortfalls). In Oregon, we are considering a $45/MWh penalty, although that may give way to an alternative compliance payment, or ACP instead (or both might be included in the bill, under the assumption that utilities will never actually pay the penalty, the ACP being the more attractive option.

(An ACP allows utilities to pay into an escrow fund instead of facing penalties if they are short in their compliance efforts. The ACP would be set at some incremental amount above the market rate of renewables, say 125% of the average cost per MWh of the most recent contracts acquired by the utility, so as to make it the least attractive option for compliance. It would thus only be used when utilities' good-faith efforts to acquire renewables fail. The escrow funds would be controlled by the PUC and would be used to fund future projects for the utility's compliance, or to fund other renewables projects).

Also, I was interested to see that the proposed REO allows the PUC to move or waive compliance targets for utilities. We considered that option in Oregon, but thought that such a provision would create giant loopholes in the RES. Plus, we'd have to trust the PUC to be strict about it's interpretation of what was "not in the public interest." We instead opted to include a specific cost cap offramp provision that lets utilities off the hook if the combination of the above market costs of acquiring renewables (either power or renewable energy credits), or paying the ACP, would equate to 4% above the utilities total revenue requirement - that's all pretty 'wonky' I realize, but essentially the provision would prevent rates for any utility from increasing by more than 4% due to the RES, unless the utility wanted to do so voluntarily (and got PUC approval). We found that writing an explicit cost offramp into the bill was preferable to leaving it up to the PUC.

Anyway, great to see that not only are more states adopting Renewable Energy Standards, but states with existing RESs are also expanding and strengthening them (i.e. California, Texas, Arizona, and now hopefully Minnesota). Cheers,

Jesse Jenkins

I think there is more

Joe — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 11:09:46 -0500

I think there is more opposition in Norway, if only because there is less agricultural land and more wild/scenic/cultural areas. However, there are still people here, albeit a very small percentage of the public, who are opposed to wind energy because it kills a few birds or interupts their view (I'm thinking of Cape Wind in particular...)

Public Resistance?

shadoweyes — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 17:02:53 -0500

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by public resistance to wind. It seems to me that more than 75% of the population fully supports wind and a few industry groups and astro-turf front groups are pretending the general public doesn't support it.