Maryland Wind Working Group
Friday, March 18, 2005
Chesapeake Bay Foundation Conference Room, Annapolis, MD
Welcome and Introduction
Michael Richard of the Maryland Energy Administration provided opening
remarks for the day. He emphasized the importance of renewable energy in
light of energy security concerns and rising energy prices. He emphasized
that in-state production of renewable energy will help the state meet its
obligations under the RPS while keep the economic development benefits in
state.
Abby Arnold, from RESOLVE Inc. was the facilitator for the meeting.
Overview of Wind Powering America and State Wind Working Groups
Phil Dougherty from U.S. Department of Energy’s Wind Powering America
program gave an overview of the Wind Powering America program. He
emphasized that the program began as a tool for rural economic
development, with an emphasis on helping communities make more informed
decisions on wind power. Today we have a need for a balanced energy
portfolio due to concerns about oil and natural gas prices. We need to
look to the responsible development of domestic resources, including wind.
There are more than 30 State wind working groups in the country
including a number in the Mid Atlantic region. Susan Shipman at MEA will
be the primary point of contact for Maryland’s Wind Working Group.
Mid Atlantic/PJM Regional Perspective
Joe Kerecman from PJM
presented their perspective as the operator of the power grid that
supplies Maryland, 11 other states and the District of Columbia. Currently
there are 302 MW of wind power in PJM, with 4173 MW under some level of
development request for interconnection study in PJM interconnection study
queues, 333 of which are in Maryland. He explained the PM has a
non-discriminatory policy for interconnection and wind is treated like any
other resource. PJM rules provide for wind to participate as capacity
resources, at a 20% capacity of name plate.. They are most interested in
the capacity from June 1 – August 31 as this is the peak time for energy
usage. Any new wind facility will start out using the 20% capacity figure.
After each year of operation the actual data will be folded into the
capacity factor. Due to the prevalence of RPSs in the PJM states, PJM has
formed PJM Environmental Information Services, Inc. to pursue the
development of GATS, the Generation Attributes Tracking System, which will
keep track of the environmental attributes associated with each kW of
energy generated.
Wind Power in Maryland
Kevin Rackstraw from Clipper Windpower discussed their permitted project in western MD. He
indicated that the Clipper project (101 MW) on Backbone Mountain will go
online in 2005. Kevin cited some challenges to the process including the
boom and bust cycle that is created by the short duration of Federal
Production Tax Credits. This dynamic greatly impacts equipment production
and supply. It also makes interactions with interveners more strained due
to tight timelines. Other barriers sited include: uncertainly over the
impacts on bats, multiyear studies of land use for birds and bats (result
of Mountainer site), new momentum for coal and nuclear with perceived less
barriers and more federal support, lack of siting guidelines, and vocal
wind opponents.
Wayne Rogers from
Synergics gave an update on their 40MW proposed facility for Roth Rock
south of Clipper project on the same ridge adjacent to an active coal
mine. The Mountaineer project in WV is also on the same ridge further
south. The proposed site is actively logged and has transmission lines.
They are proposing 24 1.65MW turbines. Barriers sited include: BANANA,
build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything. The cost of the
permitting process is onerous and cumbersome for smaller projects. Rogers
also sited that the environmental research process is evolving as are the
improvements in wind technology. He posed specific Maryland questions
pointing out the high demand for renewables in the state due to the RPS
and a current low supply. Wayne indicated that he wants renewable energy,
investment and jobs in Maryland or it will go to surrounding states.
Terry Willis a Contractor
to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service presented on the small wind project at
Eastern Neck Wildlife Refuge on Maryland’s Eastern Shore. Terry pointed
out that a 1/3 of the Nitrogen in the Chesapeake Bay comes from the air as
part of the rational for wind power. According to earlier wind maps the
refuge is supposed to have Class 2 to 3 winds. The project was expected to
generate 10,000 kWh/year. Terry pointed out that the goal of the refuge is
to help birds so they are unbiased towards wind energy. The system that
was installed is a grid tied wind/solar hybrid system. They undertook the
project to demonstrate the technology and show the public, as well as to
examine the avian impacts and provide clean energy for the refuge office.
They installed a Bergey 10 kW system with an 60 ft. unguyed open lattice
tower. The solar panels were made by BP in Frederick. Eastern Neck has an
interconnection agreement with Connectiv. When the net metering laws took
affect, the terms of the interconnection agreement changed. The new
agreement is most favorable to those producers who consume most of what
they generate. Wind speeds on the site have been much lower than initially
believed. This may be due to a microclimate effect. Eastern Neck conducted
an avian study. Terry discussed the methodology of the study. During the
course of the study they found 16 bird carcasses, 14 due to turbines, 12
of which were invasive starlings that had nested in the turbine. From the
study they estimate about 10 birds/year are killed by the turbine. They
feel they were too conservative with both the tower height and placement
and could have had better generation results with minimal avian impact.
Challenges & Opportunities: Policy
Matthew Brown and Jennifer Smith from the National Conference of State
Legislatures presented on state policy with regards to wind energy.
Maryland is in the middle of the road regarding renewable energy policy.
New Jersey is considered a leader, but has focused more on solar than
wind. They pointed out that having incentives doesn’t not necessarily
guarantee success. If the incentives are not designed well they can go
unused. The main rules and regulations pertaining to renewables include:
public benefits funds (PBF), renewable portfolio standards (RPS) and net
metering, the main financial incentives include: production tax credits (PTC),
property and sales tax incentives. In Delaware they have a Systems benefit
fund (only used for geothermal heat pumps to date) and grants for solar
projects. North Carolina has tax incentives and some interest in coastal
wind projects. Virginia has a solar manufacturing incentive, although no
companies are currently using it. They also have a solar tax incentive
that is not being used. New Jersey has a large push for rooftop solar, a
large System benefit fund, RPS, and rebates. They are more advanced at
implementing their RPS. They are also integrating rebates into the RPS. 40
MW planned of solar with a high subsidy over 50% cost. NJ also funded a
study on off-shore wind. Pennsylvania and Hawaii include efficiency in to
their RPS. In Pennsylvania renewable grant money comes from clean air
penalties and waste tipping fees. In addition they have a 1 cent/kWh
production tax credit for wind.
Ann Elsen, from Montgomery
County, MD presented on a joint purchase of wind energy made by the
County’s electricity buying group, which was included in the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) to help the state meet its obligations under the
Clean Air Act. The County entered a two-year contract for
geographically-specific RECs, the equivalent of the output from 10
turbines from the Mountaineer facility in West Virginia. The market driver
for the purchase was the favorable comparison of the price premium for
wind power to the cost of other air quality measures taken by local
government, such as bicycle lockers at Metro stations or CNG buses. Ms.
Elsen discussed the policy implications of varying definitions of RECs and
“environmental attributes.” She stated that it would be helpful for the
Public Service Commission (PSC) to more clearly define RECs in terms of
attributes, in order to maintain separation of compliance and voluntary
markets for renewable power. She emphasizes the need for consumer
protection in the voluntary market, and the importance of preventing
“double counting” of RECs through clear and enforceable regulation. The
Maryland PSC is currently developing regulations for implementation of the
RPS. A draft version will be posted on the PSC website for comment soon,
and regulations will be published in July.
Challenges & Opportunites: Environmental & Siting
Dan Boone from the Maryland Sierra Club presented. He said that he is a
supporter of renewable energy but has concerns about ecological, aesthetic
and noise impacts of wind. He pointed out the lower wind resources in
summer months and that the best wind conditions in MD are in forest
interior lands. Dan pointed to the rich wind resources that are present in
the Chesapeake Bay and coastal areas as well as on public lands. He feels
that offshore deep water wind should be investigated seriously. He has
concern over the cumulative effect of all wind projects on wildlife
species. He pointed to the direct impacts on habitat and the impact of
avian and bat collisions. He noted that higher turbines may exponentially
increase the risk to larger numbers of birds. He is also concerned about
the other indirect impacts such as the clearing of lands and forest
fragmentation.
Dale Strickland with
Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST) spoke about his work on pre and
post wind power project studies. He discussed a range of impacts
including: direct habitat loss (due to roads and pads), and indirect
habitat loss (behavior avoidance) He pointed out that indirect habitat
loss can be long-term (avoidance) and short term (avoidance followed by
habituation). He pointed out the a number of factors influence habitat
impacts including the size of the road required to construct the turbines
(influenced by of the size of crane that must be used), steepness of
terrain, types of soil amount of rainfall. He pointed out that the best
way to reduce impacts is to avoid important wildlife habitats, minimize
new roads, build in lowest impact season, educate crew, plan for
reclamation before a project starts. Dale pointed to the need for research
wind power impacts including small development vs. large developments,
habitat (nonfatality) avian impacts, relationship of habitat impacts to
population viability, and a better understanding of the cause of bat
fatalities. The national average is 3.1 fatalities/MW/Yr. but there are
few data points some portions of the country (e.g., Texas and the NE). New
wind technologies have improvements designed to reduce avian impacts such
as no perch sites on turbines, upwind blades, underground power lines,
less infrastructure, unguyed, lower RPMs, and improved lighting. Dale
discussed a bird study in WV using radar at 5 locations, three sites
within a proposed wind plant and two reference sites. The study found that
migrating passerines appeared not to be influenced by topography and did
not concentrate along the ridge. Based on the number of birds detected by
the radar passing through the proposed are of the wind plant, and the
avian fatalities recorded at the Mountaineer site to the WEST, Dale
indicated that WEST estimated that a 300 MW wind plant at this site might
have killed approximately 475 birds during the fall of study, or 0.16% of
exposed birds. Dale spoke about the current research on bat mortality and
stated that bat fatalities appear to be occurring after fronts when wind
speeds drop.
John Sherwell from the
Power Plant Research Program of the MD Department of Natural Resources
gave an overview of the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN)
adjudicatory process. He stressed that they would like to see more
interaction with applicants before lawyers get involved with the process.
State evidence in hearings comes from the state Power Plant Research
Program. They provide technical support to the Public Service Commission
in the form of environmental impact reports and research. They have
developed a new GIS planning tool that combines wind maps, with other
important factors to consider.
Kevin Rackstraw from Clipper Windpower clarified a few points from earlier discussion
specifically that the draft USFW guidelines are voluntary, not mandatory,
and are under a 2-year public review process and the tax treatment for the
wind industry is the same as other assets, and relative to other Federal
energy subsides the PTC is quite small. He stated that it would be
beneficial to wind projects to have more defined rules that do not change.
He would like to see more effort focused on mitigating impacts (including
offsite mitigation options) instead of stalling turbine installation. He
noted that the NWCC wildlife working group is just starting a project on
mitigation strategies. Other industries have used mitigation successfully
such as fish hatcheries. He pointed to the PTC as creating great time
stress and pointed to that as a cause for great stress on environmental
issues due to the short time lines imposed by the PTC.
Moving Forward - Facilitated Discussion
The meeting concluded with a discussion session on many of the issues
raised earlier in the day. Topics for future discussion for this working
group included:
- Concern that the work of the Maryland Wind Working Group doesn’t
overlap or duplicate efforts with other groups (i.e., PSC siting task
force)
- RPS Consumer Issues and the Voluntary market
- Policy development
- DOE Support to MEA through Oct 2006
- Farm Bill Workshops
- Bring in the utilities and other stakeholders not present at this
meeting
- Invite legislators when not in session or arrange briefings to
legislators and regulators
- Outreach to the electrical cooperative community for small wind
The next activity for the group will be an organizational meeting to
determine the future direction of the Wind Working Group. The Maryland
Energy Administration will organize this meeting and will be in contact
with meeting participants regarding this and future meetings.
|
