We appreciate Windaction for sharing this information. There is still time to notify the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that any renewable energy used should be able to produce energy when we need it, and the time of year that we need that energy. Wind does not meet that need, and never will. We are ruining acres and acres of mountain ridges, and now the transmission lines will be forced on close neighbor’s properties by eminent domain. Again we need on-peak, on-season, and reliable energy and you can link below to let your voice be heard.
It is important that we do this as we work to save the NC Mountains, and all east coast mountains from the destruction of wind plants. These are industrial wind plants, not farms, and they generate electricity, so they are a power plant. The 1983 Mountain Ridge Protection Act was written to protect the NC Mountains from such industrialization. Wind proponents want to weaken the law to allow these wind plants, even though experience shows that they cost too much and do not make energy when we need it.
Let your voice be heard on a Federal level. Say no to the insanity of commercial, industrial scale wind on protected mountain ridges. The deadline has been extended until April 12, 2010. Again, there are also links at the end of this article. Please give the docket number in your comments. ( Docket No. RM10-11-000) and this is the web site for comments. http://ferc.gov. Please go to the section labeled documents and filings (left side of page) and then e-comments.
Thank you,
Cynthia Hardy Wadsworth
Ashe County, North Carolina
Windaction.org comments to FERC regarding integration of renewables into the grid(Posted April 2, 2010)
Energy policy in the United States calls for the aggressive deployment of renewable generation within this decade. This policy has led to an explosion of renewable resources that operate largely off-peak, off-season and intermittently, and are located in rural areas with limited transmission. Conversely, there has been only limited development of renewable generation which operates largely on-peak, on-season, reliably or near load centers.
By the end of 2009, 35,000 megawatts of on-shore wind was installed in the United States, double that which was installed just two years ago. Barring systemic barriers imposed on renewables development, including transmission constraints, this trend is likely to continue. Based on the interconnection queues of each grid region, industrial wind is the dominant renewable resource representing more than 90% of the proposed generating capacity of all renewable energy projects in the United States.
Last January, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued a Notice of Inquiry (Docket No. RM10-11-000 ) seeking public comment on whether to reform any of its rules or procedures to better accommodate variable energy resources (VERs) such as wind, solar or non-storage hydro generating plants.
Windaction.org worked with energy expert, William P. Short III, to submit comments.
We state that the true impact of our current national renewable vision is the massive public cost needed to transform the U.S. power grid to accommodate variable energy resources, despite the fact that these resources are not guaranteed to deliver energy at the very time of day and year when we need it the most.
Current policies that encourage renewable generation at the State and Federal levels reward all renewables equally for placing a megawatt-hour of energy on the grid. There is no adjustment to the federal or state subsidies based on time of day or seasonal demand requirements nor is there a meaningful adjustment for location of the power facility. These policies have created artificial and unsustainable market pressures; thus, compelling system planners to respond with more transmission and the fast-tracking of renewable projects that may be not only not needed but actually of poor quality from a grid reliability perspective.
If renewable subsidies were to discriminate in favor of those renewables that produce close to load and during the time of day and year when the energy is most needed (i.e. capacity rather than energy), we would expect the response in the market to be almost immediate. The need for expansive transmission would drop off. More renewables would be proposed for sites closer to our population centers and that can service our peak demand periods. The market would decide which renewable solutions best met the goal. Rather than seeing 125 megawatts of unpredictable wind built we might get 25 megawatts of baseload biomass; rather than remote-sited solar generation in the Mojave desert requiring 100 to 200 miles of new transmission, we may see a greater effort to build rooftop solar in California’s cities. Reliable generation would mean less need for storage, less redundant generation and a better opportunity for replacing fossil fuel generation with renewables rather than merely displacing some fuel.
While public policy regarding renewables has helped the emerging renewables market, it is time these policies were amended to better suit the public’s needs. We recommend abandoning ill-defined plans to reinvent our existing electric system so it can better accommodate variable energy renewable sources, and focus on consumer-centric, market-based policies that will move us towards real world, reliable solutions for our renewable generation.
There is still time for interested parties to file comments with the FERC. The deadline for filing has been extended to April 12, 2010.
Agency Web Site: http://ferc.gov. Documents created electronically using word processing software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned format.
Mail/Hand Delivery: Commenters unable to file comments electronically must mail or hand deliver an original and 14 copies of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426.
Mk Shean (Technical Information)
Office of Energy Policy and Innovations
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20426
(202) 502-6792
Mk.Shean@ferc.gov
Timothy Duggan (Legal Information)
Office of General Counsel – Energy Markets
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20426
(202) 502-8326
Comments submitted by Lisa Linowes of windaction and William Short:
Conclusion
The true impact of our current national renewable vision is the massive public cost needed to transform our power grid to accommodate variable energy resources, despite the fact that these resources are not guaranteed to deliver energy at the very time of day and year when we need it the most.
The unpredictability of variable energy resources will become more problematic as the country aims to deliver more remotely-sited generation to population centers on the East and West Coasts. The DOE and state regulatory bodies have argued that geographically dispersing renewable projects nationwide will help to dampen the broad swings in available energy, but this provides no assurances that the energy will be where or when we need it the most.
It is well established that the traditional power market responds to energy and capacity market signals. However, current policies that encourage renewable generation at the State and Federal levels reward all renewables equally for placing a megawatt-hour of energy on the grid.
There is no adjustment to the federal or state subsidies based on time of day or seasonal demand requirements nor is there a meaningful adjustment for location of the power facility. These policies have created artificial and unsustainable market pressures; thus, compelling system planners to respond with more transmission and the fast-tracking of renewable projects that may be not only not needed but actually of poor quality from a grid reliability perspective.
If renewable subsidies were to discriminate in favor of those renewables that produce close to load and during the time of day and year when the energy is most needed (i.e. capacity rather than energy), we would expect the response in the market to be almost immediate. The need for expansive transmission would drop off. More renewables would be proposed for sites closer to our population centers and that can service our peak demand periods. The market would decide which renewable solutions best met the goal. Rather than seeing 125 megawatts of unpredictable wind built we might get 25 megawatts of baseload biomass; rather than remote-sited solar generation in the Mojave desert requiring 100 to 200 miles of new transmission, we may see a greater effort to build rooftop solar in California’s cities. Reliable generation would mean less need for storage, less redundant generation and a better opportunity for replacing fossil fuel generation with renewables rather than merely displacing some fuel.
While public policy regarding renewables has helped the emerging renewables market, it is time these policies were amended to better suit the public’s needs. We recommend abandoning ill-defined plans to reinvent our existing electric system so it can better accommodate variable energy renewable sources, and focus on consumer-centric, market-based policies that will move us towards real world, reliable solutions for our renewable generation.
We respectfully ask that the Commission not adopt more lenient rules governing the integration of variable energy resources. Instead, we ask that the Commission request ISO/RTOs to prepare proposals that adjust the non-energy market signals to all renewable generation. These proposals would be designed to incent renewable generation to build closer to load, be capacity resources, operate on-peak and on-season and discourage the opposite behavior. Upon the receipt of these proposals, the Commission would prepare a report to Congress, the Department of Energy and the various state regulatory commissions on the Commission’s findings and recommendations.
