Author Archives Laura Arnold

Evansville Courier-Press runs IndyStar article about Morton Solar complaint against Vectren filed with IURC; See reader comments

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   July 22, 2013  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

The Evansville Courier-Press is finally running the story about the Morton Solar complaint against Vectren filed with the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC).

See http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/jul/21/renewable-energy-complaint-tests-vectrens-pull/?partner=popular

I suppose you could say "better late than never". But it does make me wonder why it took the Courier-Press so long to run this story after it has been picked up all over the US.

Clearly the case is not over yet. There is a prehearing conference and hearing scheduled for Thursday, July 25 at 10:30 am in Indianapolis at the IURC.

In the meantime, I thought you might be interested in reading the on-line comments from the Evansville newspaper about this story. I have not attempted to screen or edit the comments. I have just copied and pasted them for you. Here goes...

  • July 21, 2013
  • 7:36 p.m.
rkforuk writes:

Vectren wants nothing but to keep their monopoly paying out at a very high rate and keep any cheaper energy sources from intruding into their honeyhole!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • July 21, 2013
  • 7:44 p.m.
usiguy07 writes:

And wouldn't surprise me a bit if the state does nothing because they probably have their corrupt paws in vectrens profit pockets.

  • July 21, 2013
  • 9:19 p.m.
3322 writes:

We are having solar panels installed at our house this summer. We will watch Vectren like a hawk, as we always must, during this process. It will be just our bad luck but to Indiana's citizens' benefit if a new state credit for such installations is passed next year.

BTW we were "lucky" enough to be on the short route that the tree trimmers from hell serviced this summer. Before this crew was fired they managed to about kill one of our trees by hacking it up to the point where even the arborist from Vectren was confounded. Vectren's arrogance is beyond belief. I urge everyone to watch this public utility/monopoly as well as the IURC very carefully.

Also do everything you possibly can to conserve energy. Help your bottom line and cut theirs in the process.
Martha Crosley

  • July 21, 2013
  • 9:39 p.m.
3322 writes:

Let me see if I have this right. This small turbine may power one class room on a windy day and Vectren needs to install a new transformer to handle the load. Sounds like they needed to put up a new transformer for a long time and saw a good chance to make a nice profit on a bunch of school kids. Class act Vectren!

  • July 21, 2013
  • 9:42 p.m.
Panopticon writes:

The entire United States could generate 100% of its energy needs from renewable sources if we were serious about building the necessary infrastructure.

  • July 21, 2013
  • 10:26 p.m.
safeathome writes:

The best utility money can but, with the highest ethics and the highest rates. Got to admire these fine corporate citizens.

  • July 21, 2013
  • 11 p.m.
PoorWolf writes:

It's way past time for Indiana to have better options with wind and solar. For the paid Vectren spokesperson to make the not so veiled threat that Mr. Morton is risking his business by challenging Vectren, and that most people just "bite the bullet and pay" is a little shocking. If Mr. Morton has tried to work with them for that many years with little or no success, he's been a patient man. The Vectren presence here and the Vectren presence in their Ohio market is completely different. And absolutely telling that Vectren wants to charge the school $12,000 until the school complains to the state, and the regulators make Vectren back off and tell them the action was illegal. A utility of that size surely has a competent legal department. Now looks like they need to get that public relations department tuned up quickly.

  • July 21, 2013
  • 11:11 p.m.
Lemuel writes:

Way to go Vectren.

  • July 21, 2013
  • 11:20 p.m.
Hickeyboys_Daddy writes:

this should show everyone how far Vectren and the fossil fuel industry will go to sabotage renewable energy.

This is totally outrageous. The Indiana Senators and House members are being bought and sold by these same people.

It's time for some real change. Every one should be running Fuel cells and solar panels on their homes and just cut VECTREN out about 50% of the year. I wonder how they would like that?

It's technically feasible to use solar power to convert pure water into hydrogen and oxygen. And it's equally possible to put the Oxygen and hydrogen back together in a fuel cell to generate electrical power.

NASA does this on their satellite and the Space Station and the Shuttle. And current Military Submarines are running on Fuel Cells right now as I'm typing this. Mark my words, if Germany had this current technology back in 1940 we would all be speaking German and Japanese and Germany would have succeeded in chocking off Britain's Supplies from the USA using those wolf packs. The German U Boat's were vulnerable when they had to surface and recharge their batteries. We won't the war using radar to locate their subs and destroyed them while they were at the surface at night recharging their batteries. But if they could have stayed submerged for three weeks like current fuel cell powered submarines they would have been much harder to find and destroy. They may have been free to roam the oceans and disrupting the sea lanes between the USA and England. Thankfully they didn't have fuel cells in their subs.

But, todays submarine of other countries are using fuel cells to power their batteries. And they can stay submerged for up to three weeks at a time. I just hope we don't have to go to war against these new fuel cell powered enemy submarines. They are so quiet that they can be hard to find. They have fewer and quieter moving parts than our current expensive nuclear submarines. But our nukes can stay submerged for months vs weeks. Still the quieter and smaller fuel cell powered subs may have a critical advantage in the littoral zone.

Back on topic. Shame on VECTREN for treating these little kids like that.

  • July 21, 2013
  • 11:56 p.m.
Hickeyboys_Daddy writes:

Simply put, he said, it's not sunny and windy all of the time.

Yea but it's windy and sunny enough of the time to help cut the profits that VECTREN makes and they don't like that.

On the Contrary. It's not dark and calm all the time either.

It's sunny enough to use the sunlight to split the water molecule and store hydrogen and oxygen for later used in a fuel cell to make electricity.

  • July 22, 2013
  • midnight
Hickeyboys_Daddy writes:

Does anyone really fully trust Vectren spokeswoman Chase Kelley? I sure don't trust the paid mouth piece to speak for any thing other than VECTREN's Point of view.

It's up to the Legislature to make VECTREN do what's best for everyone not just the few. So it's up to use to elect the right people to do that job for us not for just VECTREN.

It's up to Scripts Howard owner of the Evansville Courier and Press to tell us who these people are and who represents the little people vs the big corp.

  • July 22, 2013
  • 12:06 a.m.
GrannyCares writes:

I also question the sincerity of the Indiana utilities companies (including Vectren) "Energize Indiana" program. They hand out light bulbs and low-flow showerheads that have been pre-paid by your utility bill, but discourage further improvements energy efficiencies. https://docs.google.com/document/d/15...

  • July 22, 2013
  • 1:06 a.m.
raprap writes:

Only T Boone Pickens, Hippies and Obama supporters like Wind and Solar power--of course Indiana based Vectrin see's this as a challenge to their hegemony.

Rap

  • July 22, 2013
  • 4:50 a.m.
whywhywhy writes:

I would be willing to bet the top management and board of directors are all conservative republicans. The republican party mantra is free market competition as the best, most efficient way to deliver products and services. However, when it comes to competition, we see that their real motive is profit, power, and greed. The management of a public utility takes no special skills when you are guaranteed a profit and no competition within your designated area. A little sunshine has been shown on their true values.

  • July 22, 2013
  • 6:11 a.m.
nullus_credas writes:

"...Vectren is motivated to stall or stop the spread of renewable energy because projects cut into the utility's profit margins".

Not likely. When the monopoly sees their profits slipping they simply trot up to Indy and whine a little to the utilities commission and Voilà!, an instant rate increase. Sweet deal if you can get it.

  • July 22, 2013
  • 7:08 a.m.
Penguin writes:

Why am I not surprised...another blog of bash Vectren. I am not a Vectren employee but I sure enjoy the energy powering my computer right now. Indiana is powered by coal! The U.S. is powered by coal! In Indiana only 3% of power is generated by something other than coal. That means select 9 days out of the year and those days are powered by something other than coal. So for all you bloggers who bash fossil fuels, shut down you computer and all your lights, air conditioning, heat in the winter and so on for all but 9 days a year.

The U.S. has 200 years of coal reserves. Indiana extracts so much coal we are the 7th most coal extracting state in the country. Now, I expect several to tell me how terrible it is that we use coal and I will tell you how wonderful it is that last week when it was 95 degrees outside it was 72 in my house. That plastics are produced by energy produced by coal. That plastics produced for the medical industry saved my childs life.

In the next three years it is predicted the U.S. will become the leading oil producing country in the world. The UlS. is now exporting oil. Yes, the U.S. has more oil than each of the middle eastern countries. Three military personnel are killed each day providing safe delivery of the middle eastern oil to the U.S.

If all you who believe wind and solar are the end all of electric generation, than show down your computer for all but 9 days a year and let's see how long you are on the complaint list. It is time we start embracing our good fortune to lead the world in coal, oil and natural gas reserves.

  • July 22, 2013
  • 8:10 a.m.
Captain_Hindsight writes:

in response to Penguin:

Why am I not surprised...another blog of bash Vectren. I am not a Vectren employee but I sure enjoy the energy powering my computer right now. Indiana is powered by coal! The U.S. is powered by coal! In Indiana only 3% of power is generated by something other than coal. That means select 9 days out of the year and those days are powered by something other than coal. So for all you bloggers who bash fossil fuels, shut down you computer and all your lights, air conditioning, heat in the winter and so on for all but 9 days a year.

The U.S. has 200 years of coal reserves. Indiana extracts so much coal we are the 7th most coal extracting state in the country. Now, I expect several to tell me how terrible it is that we use coal and I will tell you how wonderful it is that last week when it was 95 degrees outside it was 72 in my house. That plastics are produced by energy produced by coal. That plastics produced for the medical industry saved my childs life.

In the next three years it is predicted the U.S. will become the leading oil producing country in the world. The UlS. is now exporting oil. Yes, the U.S. has more oil than each of the middle eastern countries. Three military personnel are killed each day providing safe delivery of the middle eastern oil to the U.S.

If all you who believe wind and solar are the end all of electric generation, than show down your computer for all but 9 days a year and let's see how long you are on the complaint list. It is time we start embracing our good fortune to lead the world in coal, oil and natural gas reserves.

I don't see anyone "bashing coal". I see people bashing Vectren.

  • July 22, 2013
  • 8:15 a.m.
independence writes:

in response to Penguin:

Why am I not surprised...another blog of bash Vectren. I am not a Vectren employee but I sure enjoy the energy powering my computer right now. Indiana is powered by coal! The U.S. is powered by coal! In Indiana only 3% of power is generated by something other than coal. That means select 9 days out of the year and those days are powered by something other than coal. So for all you bloggers who bash fossil fuels, shut down you computer and all your lights, air conditioning, heat in the winter and so on for all but 9 days a year.

The U.S. has 200 years of coal reserves. Indiana extracts so much coal we are the 7th most coal extracting state in the country. Now, I expect several to tell me how terrible it is that we use coal and I will tell you how wonderful it is that last week when it was 95 degrees outside it was 72 in my house. That plastics are produced by energy produced by coal. That plastics produced for the medical industry saved my childs life.

In the next three years it is predicted the U.S. will become the leading oil producing country in the world. The UlS. is now exporting oil. Yes, the U.S. has more oil than each of the middle eastern countries. Three military personnel are killed each day providing safe delivery of the middle eastern oil to the U.S.

If all you who believe wind and solar are the end all of electric generation, than show down your computer for all but 9 days a year and let's see how long you are on the complaint list. It is time we start embracing our good fortune to lead the world in coal, oil and natural gas reserves.

Here’s a stunning statistic: A government policy to promote coal use in Northern China may have cut the life expectancy of 500 million people by more than five years on average.

Is this what you want for Evansville?? http://69.195.124.113/~chinamik/wp-co...

  • July 22, 2013
  • 8:18 a.m.
werallkidz writes:

That sounds like great public relations Vectren! Screw the kids! Now the kids of our state understand what their parent's issues with you are!

  • July 22, 2013
  • 8:59 a.m.
pressanykey writes:

If the school will be the recipient of the generated electricity then I think the school corporation should go ahead and pay the fee, if VECTREN does not relent, and consider the amount saved on their billing as repayment.

Who will be maintaining the wind turbine, and will they be compensated? These are points that should have been considered in any costs versus savings study.

__

  • July 22, 2013
  • 9:23 a.m.
gravedigger writes:

in response to 3322:

We are having solar panels installed at our house this summer. We will watch Vectren like a hawk, as we always must, during this process. It will be just our bad luck but to Indiana's citizens' benefit if a new state credit for such installations is passed next year.

BTW we were "lucky" enough to be on the short route that the tree trimmers from hell serviced this summer. Before this crew was fired they managed to about kill one of our trees by hacking it up to the point where even the arborist from Vectren was confounded. Vectren's arrogance is beyond belief. I urge everyone to watch this public utility/monopoly as well as the IURC very carefully.

Also do everything you possibly can to conserve energy. Help your bottom line and cut theirs in the process.
Martha Crosley

Conserving energy is exactly what Vectren wants. They would love nothing more than to have everyone use less energy. That way they can save money by not having to produce as much energy, then they can go before the Indiana Regulatory Commission and request a rate increase. More money, less costs. And if they can make up fees for the effort you undertake to save energy, they'll do that too.

  • July 22, 2013
  • 9:30 a.m.
disaffected writes:

in response to 3322:

Let me see if I have this right. This small turbine may power one class room on a windy day and Vectren needs to install a new transformer to handle the load. Sounds like they needed to put up a new transformer for a long time and saw a good chance to make a nice profit on a bunch of school kids. Class act Vectren!

How will the electricity generated from the turbine enter the grid? It can manufacture only enough electricity to power 1 classroom and even then it reqires a "windy" day. Do you tie such a low current line into a 7600 volt transmission line WITHOUT a transformer?

Plug your cellphone into a 115 outlet without a transformer for a quick lesson in electrical engineering.

  • July 22, 2013
  • 10:24 a.m.

Let me look at my Vectren bill. Oh yes there it is. Right after current electric charges. Includes a service charge of $11. Per Vectrens website "charges billed to recover costs to operation and maintenance of service delivery facilities." I would think that putting a transformer on the grid to allow customers to generate electricity for the grid would be a service delivery cost for Vectren.

  • July 22, 2013
  • 11:08 a.m.
crski writes:

We need Obama to come to Haubstadt and put all of these children in the background of one his demeaning lectures as victims of white collar crime, while he bashes the coal industry and explains to us where we will get economical fuel alternatives to replace the 88% of coal generated electricity that we currently need to " keep the lights on ".

  • July 22, 2013
  • 12:03 p.m.
otamatsu writes:

With the simpering commercial of Vectren's with the woman talking about giving more than you take, and polished butt kissers like Ellsworth on their payroll, what else would you expect from these hypocrites?

  • July 22, 2013
  • 12:26 p.m.
noog writes:

in response to crski:

We need Obama to come to Haubstadt and put all of these children in the background of one his demeaning lectures as victims of white collar crime, while he bashes the coal industry and explains to us where we will get economical fuel alternatives to replace the 88% of coal generated electricity that we currently need to " keep the lights on ".

ROFLMAO! Now that's funny.

  • July 22, 2013
  • 1:18 p.m.
SonsOfLiberty writes:

in response to disaffected:

How will the electricity generated from the turbine enter the grid? It can manufacture only enough electricity to power 1 classroom and even then it reqires a "windy" day. Do you tie such a low current line into a 7600 volt transmission line WITHOUT a transformer?

Plug your cellphone into a 115 outlet without a transformer for a quick lesson in electrical engineering.

Exactly. If I run 2 types of metal in a lemon and brag about the voltage to light a flash light bulb dimly for 2 minutes, why should I expect Vectren to front the money for a transformer?

Talk about green nut jobs!! The energy produced by this school will be far less then the energy it took to build the equipment and they want to brag about being green while they burn someone else's money and use more energy then if they did nothing?

Mob mentality and brainless Obama worshipers are running this country!

VA-based Dominion Resources Buys Indy Solar Farm Projects from MN-based Sunrise Energy Ventures (SEV); Projects are part of IPL Rate REP reverse auction

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   July 22, 2013  /   Posted in Feed-in Tariffs (FiT), IPL Rate REP, Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Virginia Company Acquires Indiana Solar Farms

At their peak, the arrays are expected to produce a combined output of 28.6 megawatts of electricity.

updated: 7/22/2013 12:48:46 PM

Virginia Company Acquires Indiana Solar Farms

InsideINdianaBusiness.com Report

Virginia-based Dominion Resources Inc. (NYSE:D) has purchased three central Indiana solar farms. The former Minnesota-based Sunrise Energy Ventures LLC projects are under a 15-year power purchase agreement with Indianapolis Power & Light Co. They're expected to be in service by the end of the year.

In 2009, Dominion also partnered with BP Wind Energy to build wind turbines in northwest Indiana.

Sources: Dominion Resources Inc., Inside INdiana Business

July 22, 2013

News Release

RICHMOND, Vir. - Dominion (NYSE:D) has acquired three solar-power development projects near Indianapolis, Ind., from Sunrise Energy Ventures.

Expected to be in service before the end of 2013, the projects will use standard photovoltaic technology with a fixed-axis system to generate a peak combined output of 28.6 megawatts of electricity.

"Dominion has been adding renewable energy to its diversified generation mix and is very pleased to acquire these three solar projects," said David Christian, Dominion Generation CEO. "These projects are consistent with Dominion's promotion of a portfolio of efficient conventional, nuclear and renewable resources."

The three projects are known as Indy Solar I, Indy Solar II and Indy Solar III. Two of the projects, located southeast of Indianapolis in Franklin Township, will be sited on 155 acres. The third, located southwest of Indianapolis, will be sited on 134 acres. All three projects are on flat agricultural and forest land that are well suited for solar installation. The purchase price is confidential.

The projects have 15-year power purchase agreements with Indianapolis Power and Light Company.

[Editor's note: These three solar PV projects are part of the reverse auction IPL conducted as a part of Rate REP. The IPL reverse auction was the conciliation prize for developers who had proposed projects using the IPL voluntary feed-in tariff (VFIT) before IPL changed the terms and conditions of the program. After IPL made changes to Rate REP, these initial projects proposed by developers were no longer eligible for the program.]

AMEC, an international engineering and construction firm with U.S. headquarters in Tucker, Ga., will build the three facilities. AMEC is also building a 7.7 megawatt solar installation for Dominion near Augusta, Ga.

Dominion is one of the nation's largest producers and transporters of energy, with a portfolio of approximately 27,000 megawatts of generation, 11,000 miles of natural gas transmission, gathering and storage pipeline and 6,400 miles of electric transmission lines. Dominion operates one of the nation's largest natural gas storage systems with 947 billion cubic feet of storage capacity and serves retail energy customers in 15 states. For more information about Dominion, visit the company's website at www.dom.com.

Source: Dominion Resources Inc.

Indiana Sen. Jim Buck (R-Kokomo) says wind farm issue not assigned to its own study committee; What now?

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   July 21, 2013  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments
Although there will not be a separate and independent summer or interim study committee on wind farms, it is still possible for this topic to be assigned to the Regulatory Flexibility Committee. Visit this link to see which state legislators are a member of this important committee. The first meeting of the Regulatory Flexibility Committee will be as follows:

The first meeting of the Regulatory Flexibility Committee will be held on
September 4, 2013. The meeting will convene at 10:00 A.M. in Senate Chamber of
the State House, 200 W. Washington St., Indianapolis, Indiana.
The Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) will present its annual reports
on the natural gas, electricity, communications, and water/wastewater industries.
The IURC's report on the communications industry will include a summary of data
concerning video service franchise fees collected and spent by local units in 2012,
as required by HEA 1280-2012. The IURC will also present a summary of water
resource data provided by Indiana water utilities for the 2012 calendar year, as
required by SEA 132-2012.
The meeting will also include the annual report on renewable energy resources by
the State Utility Forecasting Group, along with a preview of the 2013 state
electricity forecast.
(The meeting will be broadcast over the Internet for those unable to attend. Please
visit http://www.in.gov/legislative/2441.htm and select the video stream for the
appropriate room from the drop down list to watch the Webcast.)

7/20/2013 11:15:00 AM


State unlikely to conduct study of wind farms

Ken de la Bastide, Kokomo Tribune Enterprise Editor

Indianapolis - It’s unlikely that a state study of wind farms will be taking place this year as the summer study committee season draws to a close.

During the session of the Indiana General Assembly Sen. Jim Buck authored a resolution that was adopted by both chambers of the legislature to conduct a study of the benefits and consequences of industrial wind farms.

Buck said Thursday that a wind farm summer study was not assigned to its own committee.

The final decision rested with Republican Brian Bosma, speaker of the Indiana House, David Long, president of the Senate, and Democrats Scott Pelath, minority leader in the House, and Tim Lanane, minority leader in the Senate, to appoint lawmakers to a separate summer study committee.

“I’ve not heard if any committee is picking it up or not,” Buck said. “Since there was no specific legislation attached to the study, it was not given its own committee.”

Buck said there were more than 200 different requests for summer study committees passed by the legislature.

“I wouldn’t bet on it,” Buck said when asked if he believed the wind farm issue will be addressed. “The study committees don’t have a lot of allotted time.”

Buck said four of the five counties included in his Senate district are considered prime areas for wind farm development.

“Local government is looking into it,” he said. “This is an issue that won’t go away. The administration [of President Barrack Obama] is pushing wind and solar energy development.”

The Wildcat Wind Farm in eastern Tipton County, developed by E.ON Climate & Renewables, is in operation. E.ON intends to expand the project into eastern Howard County either this year or the next. A second proposed wind farm in northwestern Tipton County being developed by juwi Wind has received approval of a conditional use permit with the requirement the turbines are located 1,500 feet from the nearest property line and there is a property value guarantee developed.

“The study committee will determine whether the state should implement some regulations,” Buck said in April. “The intent is to determine if there is so much of a necessity that the [Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission] wants us to do something.”

Buck said there is a lot of information about wind farms that is a mixture of fact and fiction.

“The study committee will gather information and listen to expert testimony pro and con concerning wind farms,” he said.

Related Stories:
• Howard County changes wind agreement requiring larger setback, lower noise
• Howard County implements moratorium on future wind farm developments
• Wind energy momentum winds down in, around Tippecanoe County
• Howard County mulls wind ordinance changes
• Tipton County to consider wind farm moratorium

Paul Gipe discusses problems with LEED, USGBC and “bad” wind turbines in Indianapolis; Are changes needed in LEED?

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   July 20, 2013  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Questionable Turbines and Siting Give Architects, LEED, Green Builders, and Wind Bad Name


Three Savonius rotors in front of the Nature Conservancy's downtown Indianapolis, Indiana office in a LEED Platinum application.

It’s not bad enough that we have the Koch brothers and their sycophants on an anti-renewables rampage, or the administration touting a “100-year supply of natural gas”, that we need purported “green” wind turbine manufacturers snookering architects into throwing up poorly designed wind turbines willy-nilly—some of which will use more energy than they produce.

With “friends” like these, who needs enemies.

The problem came to a head last year when the Distributed Wind Energy Association (DWEA) formally asked the U.S. Green Building Council to amend its flawed scoring system for “on-site” renewables. DWEA has yet to receive a response.

In the meantime, vendors continue to peddle uncertified wind turbines for roof top installation to architects who don’t do sufficient due diligence on the products before applying them to the LEED rating system.

LEED

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) is a rating system by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) designed to reward architects, builders, and owners for integrating energy efficiency and “green” practices into new and existing structures. The rating system has been in use for more than a decade and has gone through several iterations.

Nearly everyone agrees that LEED and USGBC have pushed the boundaries of what is a well-designed and energy efficient building in North America. Criticism of the system has focused on the ability of architects and builders to game the system, maximizing LEED points while not necessarily meeting the intent of designing and building for maximum energy efficiency and comfort.

The Problem

Architects, and even some renewable energy advocates, argue that LEED’s purpose for including renewable energy in the scoring system was as much about educating the building industry and the public on how renewables can be integrated into design and construction as about actual performance. Some have suggested that because wind turbines are highly visible and kinetic, they are a better educational tool than solar photovoltaic (solar PV) panels that just sit there quietly doing their job.

And therein lies the problem.

Few in the wind industry would complain about LEED if vendors, architects, and builders would simply not call these whirling devices wind turbines but something more descriptive of their actual function: whirligigs, doo-dads, or decorative arts come to mind.

The purpose of a wind turbine is to make electricity in a cost-effective and environmentally sound manner. Poorly sited and poorly performing wind turbines installed on or close to buildings generate little or no electricity in comparison to properly sited wind turbines.

Non-operating or poorly performing wind turbines mounted on a building like so much architectural ornamentation are a costly and counterproductive form of greenwashing.

Poorly performing wind turbines violate the public’s reasonable expectation that wind turbines deliver on the green energy hype used in promoting a building design. Worse, such installations play into the hands of renewables’ enemies who love nothing better than to point out when a wind turbine doesn’t deliver on its promoter’s promise.

The LEED Rating System

USGBC’s LEED rating system encompasses many building types and both new and old construction. There are several categories of construction projects that might include renewable sources of generation.

The category for new construction and major renovation includes New Construction and Major Renovations, Schools, Healthcare, Retail, and Homes.

There is also a category for Core and Shell Construction. Many commercial real estate developers only build the core and shell of a building. Future tenants then determine the design and construction of the interiors to suit their needs.

There are five categories in the principal LEED rating system: Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency, Energy and Atmosphere, Materials and Resources, and Indoor Environmental Quality. Each category has a different weighting with a total of 100 points in the rating system. To qualify for LEED Platinum a building must win more than 80 points.

To encourage the use of renewable energy, LEED points are awarded for both renewable energy used on-site and for off-site purchase of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs). One of the most glaring flaws in the existing LEED system is that no LEED points are awarded for generating renewable energy off-site.

This omission severely restricts what architects and building owners can do to responsibly develop renewable energy. RECs date from a time, decades ago, when there was little opportunity to develop renewable energy locally or even regionally. In those dark days, to use renewable energy you had to buy it from some distant project, often owned by a utility company or its unregulated subsidiary.

Thus, USGBC currently limits architects and builders to either installing solar photovoltaics or wind turbines on-site—and often this means on the building—or participate in what some critics decry as a sham transaction to buy their green energy credentials with RECs and green tags.

Worse, the current LEED weighting system awards far more points for on-site renewable energy than for buying RECs relative to the amount of renewable energy needed.

Projects can win up to six LEED points with on-site renewable energy in an existing building by meeting only 12% of the load. To win as many points with RECs, the project would have to buy 100% of its energy from an off-site green producer.

Under LEED’s Core & Shell Rating Systems a project can win 4 points if it meets 1% of the buildings load with on-site renewable energy.

Fortunately, USGBC has recently approved changes to this provision, granting only 1 point for meeting 1% of the building’s load, and granting up to 3 points for meeting 5% of the load. That’s not the only change underway. USGBC has also adopted changes to how points are awarded for new construction as well. Equally significant, USGBC’s changes, which take effect this fall, remove the distinction between on-site and off-site generation, allowing the use of generation from community-owned projects and leased equipment. To qualify, the renewable generation must be in the same utility service area, and the ownership or lease must be for a period of 10 years.

These are significant changes, a long time coming, and may signal that USGBC is serious about addressing abuses.

Examples of Abuse

There are several examples of promoters exploiting the existing LEED system to sell their wares. One is Wind Sphere.

Wind Sphere

This wind turbine is promoted by the same company that previously touted its “wind cube”. As late as 2012 the company was advertising its outrageously expensive Diffuser Augmented Wind Turbine (DAWT) as a means to win up to 8 LEED points.

The vendor says that the wind turbine alone costs $150,000 to $225,000. Installation is extra! This puts the Wind Sphere in the range of $13,000 per kilowatt of installed capacity—five to six times more than a commercial wind turbine, and twice as much as most small wind turbines. Despite this, the vendor says the turbine will pay for itself in three years because federal subsidies will allow building owners to write off 50% of the cost and win LEED points besides.

While the specifications on the Wind Sphere are not as outlandish as on their previous Wind Cube, they remain wide of the mainstream, to say the least.

To my knowledge, no Wind Cube or Wind Sphere has ever been installed on a building that has used it to win LEED points. Nevertheless, it is using the LEED rating system to hype its overpriced product.

Urban Green Energy

Another firm exploiting LEED is Urban Green Energy (UGE), an importer of Chinese-made Vertical Axis Wind Turbines (VAWTs). The company promotes using its turbine for “buildings seeking certification under the LEED 2009 for Core & Shell Rating Systems.” They go on to note that “UGE wind turbines contribute toward satisfying EA Credit 2 On-Site Renewable Energy.”

UGE is probably most well known for installing fourteen turbines on the Philadelphia Eagles’ stadium at Lincoln Field. While the stadium is not LEED certified, the architects and the team are promoting the installation as “the gold standard in stadium greening.”

One writer characterized UGE’s wind turbines as mere “eye candy,” while the solar panels were the “workhorses” of the installation. She went on to quote Eagles president Don Smolenski saying, the turbines are “a visual representation of our commitment to sustainable efforts.”

These statements imply that UGE’s VAWTs were installed on the stadium more for their visual statement than for the energy they would produce.

Venger DNA

It’s one thing if the flamboyant owner of a football team wants to tout his green credentials, but it’s an entirely different matter if a medical research center—dependent upon public donations—installs 18 Savonius rotors because they look like a double-helix.

Little substantive information is available on Venger’s installation atop the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation’s (OMRF) new building in Oklahoma City. The reputed $1 million project was made possible by a grant from the McAlester-based Puterbaugh Foundation—money that could have been spent on either real wind turbines generating a significant amount of electricity or on much needed medical research.

The building won LEED gold for its efforts. The foundation considers the un-certified turbines “the crown jewel of the environmental features” of the new edifice. Ironically, the exact same wording was used by the Nature Conservancy at its LEED Platinum building in Indianapolis, Indiana that features three Savonius rotors.

Venger is one of two spinoffs from the defunct Helix wind turbine company of San Diego, California. The company says the turbines at OMRF will produce 85,500 kWh per year. While the projected generation is optimistic it remains well within reason. In a world where most VAWT suppliers grossly overestimate how much electricity they will produce, Venger’s estimate is quite modest.

Unfortunately, the turbines are very expensive—if the reputed cost of the project is to be believed. The turbines cost $12,000 per kW of installed capacity: five to six times that of modern commercial wind turbines and twice what most small wind turbines cost. And this is assuming we use Venger’s rating of the turbine at 4.5 kW at a wind speed of 20.5 m/s.

Small wind turbines certified in the US by the Small Wind Certification Council are rated at 11 m/s. At a wind speed of 11 m/s Venger’s V2 is claimed by the company to produce less than 1 kW.

If we rated the Venger V2 at a more reasonable power output, the relative cost of the turbine jumps to an incredible $45,000 per kW. That’s 20 times what a commercial turbine would cost or 10 times that of typical small wind turbines per unit of rated capacity.

Using another metric, the cost of the Venger V2 is $12 per kWh of annual generation. The cost of modern commercial wind turbines, in contrast, averages about $1 per kWh.

The Venger V2 may—and this is the operative word—generate electricity that costs 12 times what a commercial wind turbine could produce it for. Or it may not. If the turbines don’t perform well, the cost of course will be much higher.

Ouch! That’s an awful lot to pay for “ornamentation” in the shape of a double-helix.

Windspire

However, it is the defunct Windspire that most fully exploited the LEED rating system and took greenwashing to new levels. It’s as if Windspire’s entire marketing effort was built around gaming LEED. From Adobe Systems, to Keep Indianapolis Beautiful, to the San Francisco Public Utility Commission, architects and building owners touted their poorly sited Windspire turbines—and their LEED Platinum ratings--in the same breath.

Such flagrant exploitation of the LEED rating system should serve as a wake-up call to both the USGBC and those responsible for choosing these ill-considered installations. Far less money could have been spent to achieve the same or better energy benefits.

There are some positive exceptions, but they are few and far between.

Apogee Stadium—A Positive Example

Architects and designers are capable of using wind energy effectively. The installation of three of Northern Power’s 100 kW turbine at a new football stadium for the University of North Texas in Denton is an example of how wind can be used successfully as part of a LEED project.

The school won LEED Platinum for its Apogee Stadium where the turbines are not installed on the building but instead stand well exposed in the parking lot surrounding the stadium.

Better yet, the installation features wind turbines with a proven track record. The 21-meter diameter wind turbines are not classified as “small” by international standards and, consequently, they are not certified by the Small Wind Certification Council. Nevertheless, the turbines conform to international standards for commercial wind turbines and there are numerous installations in the US, Canada, and Britain for which there are reliable production figures.

Combined, the three turbines are expected to generate 450,000 kWh per year. This is equivalent to ~400 kWh/m2 of rotor swept area, an industry metric of performance, and a reasonable amount to expect from a wind turbine of this size in this location.

Contrast the expected performance of the three NPS 100 turbines at Apogee Stadium with the claims from Wind Sphere and Venger. Wind Sphere touts performance of nearly 800 kWh/m2 and Venger says its V2 turbines in Oklahoma City will deliver 770 kWh/m2. Both are twice what could be reasonably expected at windy site like that in Texas. These numbers are simply not credible.

While the NPS 100 turbines, at $6,700 per kW, are more than twice as expensive as commercial wind turbines today, they remain half that of the Wind Sphere and Venger turbines.

For the reported $1 million spent by OMRC, the facility could have installed 1.5 NPS 100 turbines on the grounds or in a parking lot, generating as much as 200,000 kWh per year or at least twice what Venger’s V2s are expected to produce.

Unfortunately, the NPS 100 doesn’t look like a double helix. It looks like a wind turbine.

Simple Solutions Await Action

DWEA suggested in its letter to USGBC that at a minimum, LEED only award points for wind turbines certified by the Small Wind Certification Council. This would go a long way in eliminating the use of untested wind turbines. Currently there are only five small wind turbines certified in the US. All are conventional horizontal axis wind turbines. There are no VAWTs or DAWTs that currently meet certification requirements.

DWEA also recommended that LEED only award points for wind turbines that are sited to the industry’s best practice. For a small wind turbine, best practice is to install the wind turbine so that the bottom of the rotor is at least 30 feet above all obstructions within 500 feet. This is extremely difficult to do with VAWTs.

The USGBC should also implement its new scoring system for renewable energy generation as soon as possible. They should also implement, as soon as possible, the proposed changes allowing expanded off-site use of renewable energy, such as from community-owned wind turbines. These wind turbines can then be sited to best advantage, benefitting the building owner, the community, and the LEED rating system.

It’s time that USGBC adapt LEED to offer rewards commensurate with the benefits of well-sited, cost-effective wind energy. Let’s hope that USGBC promptly takes action.

More on wind and LEED.

 

Federal Court Rules EPA Must Regulate Carbon Dioxide From Biomass Power Plants; What impact will ruling have on biomass?

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   July 15, 2013  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  JULY 15, 2013

Contact:  Mary Booth  (917) 885-2573mbooth@pfpi.net, Partnership for Policy Integrity

Ruling Overturns EPA “Deferral” on Biomass,

Decision May Have Broad Effects on Biomass Energy Industry

Under a decision issued last Friday by the United States Court of Appeals, the Environmental Protection Agency will now have to “count” carbon dioxide emissions from biomass power plants. Deciding in favor of the groups that brought the suit against EPA – the Center for Biological Diversity, the Clean Air Task Force, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Southern Environmental Law Center – the court vacated EPA’s so-called “biogenic carbon deferral” in which the EPA had exempted carbon dioxide emissions from biomass plants and other sources of biogenic CO2 for purposes of Clean Air Act permitting for a period of 3 years pending further study. The Partnership for Policy Integrity (PFPI) provided expert testimony for the case.

“The court’s decision states that once carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, it doesn’t matter if it’s from a biogenic or a fossil fuel source – it all contributes to global warming,” said Mary Booth, director of PFPI. “The decision recognizes that the plain intent of the Clean Air Act is to regulate pollutants emitted at the smokestack. Burning biomass emits more CO2 than burning fossil fuels, and the court’s decision shows that EPA failed to follow the science.”

The court decision states that EPA’s justifications for suspending regulation of biogenic COwere “arbitrary and capricious,” and that although EPA had acknowledged that burning biomass fuels may have a “significant impact” on greenhouse gas emissions, the agency had rejected solutions that would identify and regulate the largest sources of biogenic CO2.

Because biomass energy qualifies for renewable energy subsidies and tax breaks, there has been an exponential increase in the number of biomass plants being proposed and built in recent years. Most new biomass power plants are fueled with wood, and emit 40 – 50% more carbon dioxide than a coal plant, per megawatt-hour electricity generated. The court’s decision could affect how states choose to incentivize biomass energy in the future. Massachusetts has already made low-efficiency biomass power plants ineligible for subsidies, based on the large amount of CO2 they emit.

Beyond the significance of the decision from a global warming perspective, the court’s action has implications for public health. Under the Clean Air Act, a power plant that is a “major” source for one pollutant, in this case carbon dioxide, is generally considered “major for all,” and is compelled to install “Best Available Control Technology” (BACT) to reduce emissions of particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide – the pollutants emitted in the greatest amounts by biomass combustion. The court’s decision states that EPA’s biogenic carbon accounting deferral is causing hardship, because some biomass plants are moving forward without a BACT process, meaning that they emit more air pollution than they “otherwise would have but for the Deferral Rule”.

“Any biomass plant that is bigger than about 7 – 8 megawatts  is a ‘major source’ for CO2 under the Clean Air Act, emitting over 100,000 tons of CO2 per year, and therefore should be required to install Best Available Control Technology for all air pollutants” said Mary Booth. “The court’s reversal of EPA’s deferral will require these highly polluting biomass plants to use better emission controls.”

The court’s decision can be viewed here.

Copyright 2013 IndianaDG