who we are - soulwisconsin.org · coulee”conducted from 2010-2014. as prospec?ve transmission...
Post on 15-Aug-2019
213 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
November28,2016KellieKubenaEnvironmentalDivisionUSDARuralDevelopment/RuralU?li?esServiceSTOP1510,Rm51351400IndependenceAve.,SWWashington,DC20250<Kellie.Kubena@wdc.usda.gov>
Re:Mee?ngDecember7th,inBarneveld,WIregardingEISfortheDairylandPowerCoopera?ve’stransmissionproposal,“Cardinal-HickoryCreek.”
KellieKubena:
Wewritetoyouasfourof120localgovernmentsandthreeconserva?on/environmentalgroupswhorequesttocontributeagreatdealofinputregardingtheEnvironmentalImpactStatement(EIS)youragencywillbepreparinginregardtotheproposedCardinalHickoryCreek345kVtransmissionfacilityinsouthwestWisconsinandnortheastIowa.Weareinterestedinmee?ngwithyouinpersontolearnmoreaboutspecificdatapointsyouhopetocollect,theresourcesRUSwillbeablededicatetotheEISandhowtoprovideinforma?ontoyoumosteffec?velyandefficiently.
Webelievethereisgreatcommoninterestinsiengdownandgoingoversomeimportantbutlesserknownrecordeddocumentsfromacompanion345kVtransmissionproposal,“Badger-Coulee”conductedfrom2010-2014.Asprospec?vetransmissionbuildersreceiveopportuni?estopresentmaterialssuppor?ngtheirposi?onsfortheEIS,werequestthesameopportunityandhopedothisefficientlyandwithknowledgeofyourgoals.Wewouldliketoproposemee?ngwithyouonornearDecember7thwhenRUS,SWCAEnvironmentalandotherconsultantswillbeonhandforthepublicscopingmee?nginBarneveld,Wisconsin.
WhoWeAre
Ourdelega?onrepresentsfourof120municipali?esinWisconsinconcernedaboutsoaringelectricitycostsandincreasingadverseimpactsonruralandurbanlocaleconomiesandlandsfromhighvoltagetransmissionexpansionandothercapitalu?lityinvestments.Thesemunicipalgovernments,
includingeightcoun?es(figure1),haveformallype??onedtheWIPSCtoconductcomprehensiveanalysisofnon-transmissionalterna?vesforallhighcapacitytransmissionexpansionproposals.
Wearejoinedinthisinterac?onwithourstatePSCandthetransmissionlinebuildersbyenvironmentalandci?zengroupsincludingtheDriilessAreaLandConservancy,EnvironmentalLawandPolicyCenter,DriilessDefendersandS.O.U.L.ofWisconsin.
DavidGiffey,EnergyPlanningAdvisor,TownofArena,IowaCountyJohnHessChair,TownofWyoming,IowaCountyDavidStanfield,EnergyPlanningAdvisoryCommimee,TownofVermont,DaneCountyLaurieandRichardGraney,TownofLima,GrantCountyBarbaraGrenlie,Chair,TownofVermont,DaneCountyRobDanielson,EnergyPlanning&Informa?onCommimee,TownofStark,VernonCountyDavidClumer,DriilessAreaLandConservancy,Dane,Iowa,Lafaye@eandGrantCounBes
(Consultant:EnvironmentalLawandPolicyCenter)Ka?eMcGrath,DriilessDefendersandformerlegisla?vespecialist,IowaCountyRobDanielson,S.O.U.L.ofWisconsin,sevenchapters,State-wideMichaelMcDermom,VermontCi?zensPowerlineAc?onCommimee,TownofVermont,DaneCounty
WeaskforRUSsupportinmakingsurethatahighlyqualifiedexpertishiredtoconductacomprehensivecost-benefitanalysisofnon-transmissionalternaBvesandtoprovideacomparisonofimpactsonlocaleconomiesfortheEIS.
Thoughthepublicexpressedconsiderableinterestinincludingthoroughanalysisofnon-transmissionalterna?vesintheEISconductedforCapX2020linein2013,thesec?oninthefinalversionisamere172wordsinlength(figure6).TheNEPAstatutoryobliga?ontostudyanddevelopunderstandingsoflowimpactalterna?vesforpublicofficialstoreviewwasdismissedlargelythroughEISadop?onofu?lity-suppliedassump?ons.Theinapplicabilityoftheseassump?onsarenotedinthereferencedfigurewhichwehopetoexplainfurtherwhenconvenient.
Thenon-transmissionalterna?vesthatwerequestbeevaluatedaloneandincombina?onforthecurrentCardinalHickoryCreekEISendeavorinclude:
• Acceleratedandtargetedapplica?onsofenergyefficiencyu?lizingWisconsin’sFocusonEnergyprogramandprogramswithinDairylandPowerCoopera?veandotheru?li?es.
• Acceleratedandtargetedapplica?onsoftheseveraltypesofloadmanagementresources.
• Acceleratedandtargetedapplica?onsofdistributedgenera?onincludingplacementtoremovedemandandprolongthelifespanofthe“reliability”transmissionfacili?esiden?fiedbytheapplicants.
Inthedevelopmentoftheabovealterna?veresources,examinedbothaloneandincombina?on,“accelerated”meansnotbeingrestrictedtocurrentfundinglevelsbutu?lizingfundingamountsequaltothe40yearinclusivecostpassedontoallelectriccustomersforfinancing,construc?on,opera?on,maintenance,usageanddeprecia?onoftheproposedhighvoltagetransmissionop?on.Addi?onally,werequestthatacomparisonoftheeconomicimpactsonpoten?allyaffectedlocaleconomiesbeconducted.Thisstudyshouldaccountfortheimpactslistedbelowintermsofbenefitsandlossesundertwocondi?ons:(1)selectedlocaleconomiesinthepresenceofa345kVdouble-circuit,transmissionfacilityand;(2)thesamelocaleconomieswithoutthetransmissionfacilitybutinfluencedbyop?mizedmixofinvestmentsinnon-transmissionalterna?ves:
• Impactsonpropertyvaluesandthelocaltaxbaseover40years.
• Impactsonthedevelopmentofnewresidencesandbusinesseswithinsightofthepoten?altransmissionfacilityover40yearswithspecialamen?ongiventohousingbuiltorremodeledforre?rementreloca?on.
• Impactsonbusinessespatronizedbytouristsandothersvisi?ngtheareadue,inpart,toamrac?ve,naturalassetsofthearea.Es?mateovera40yearperiod.
• Impactsontheaveragecostofresiden?alandcommercialelectricserviceover40years.
Pleasenotethatshouldthefederal-levelEISforCardinalHickoryCreekfailtoincludetheseassessments,itwouldhavenega?veimpactsonenergyplanningbyseengexampleofinsufficientanalysisfortheu?lityapplicantsandtheWIPSC.Anunder-developedEISalsodetractsfromlocalgovernmentstatutoryrightstoestablishenergypriori?esandassociatedlandusegoals.
Further,wehaveexaminedthe2015EISforatransmissionproposalconductedwithinputfromthecontractedscopingfirm,SWCAEnvironmentalConsultants,anditcontainsnosec?onofcostbenefitanalysisofnon-transmissionalterna?veshmp://bit.ly/SWCA-EIS . TheotherEIS’sSWCAsuggestedweexamineforexamplealsolacksuchassessment:hmp://bit.ly/EIS_2andhmp://bit.ly/EIS_3.
Ourdelega?onhasreceivedresponsesfromtwoenergyconsul?ngfirmsexpressinginterestinconduc?ngtheanalysisofnon-transmissionalterna?vesfortheCardinalHickoryCreekEIS:
SynapseEnergy,BruceBiewald<bbiewald@synapse-energy.com>
SommerEnergy,AnnaSommer<anna@sommerenergy.com>
TheRegulatoryAssistanceProject,JanineMigden-Ostrander,<mailto:JMigden@raponline.org>isinterestedinassis?ngshouldinterpreta?onsofpolicybecomeinvolved.
Background:TheStateofEnergyPlanninginWisconsin
In1998,WisconsinceasedIntegratedResourcePlanning(IRP)marginalizingtheabilityofinvestmentsinacceleratedenergyefficiency,modernloadmanagementanddistributedgenera?ontoonlycompe?ngwithu?lityproposalsonacasebycasebasis,andwithverylimitedfunding.Asaresult,theWIPublicServiceCommissionnolongerconductson-goingenergyplanningwhichhasforcedruralcommuni?esandlocalgovernmentsandstatelawmakerstopressuretheagencytoallowuserside,non-transmissionalterna?vestocompetemorefairlyinthehighvoltagetransmissionreviewprocess.
Withoutcompe??onfromenergyefficiency,loadmanagement,thehighinterest,longtermdebtcreatedbyuncontrolledspendinginhighcapacitytransmissionexpansionandfossilfuelgenera?on,Wisconsin’sratesandfeesarenowthehighestinthemidwest(figure2).Thehigh-capacitytransmissionexpansionproposalforwhichtheRUSwillbepreparinganEISfor,“CardinalHickoryCreek,”wouldbecometheeighthhighcapacityexpansionprojectapprovedinthelasttenyears.Debtonpriortransmissionexpansionspendingnowcons?tutes19%ofatypicalruralelectricbill(figure3).
Ruralcommuni?eswithmunicipalu?li?esincludingthosebuyingpowerfromUSDAloanapplicantDairylandPowerCoopera?ve,paya20%fixedfeechargeinthispowerwhichprofoundlyundercutsthecommuni?esabilitytoinvestinsolar,loadmanagementandenergyefficiency.
TheWIPSChasblockedstatelawmakerrequeststoincreaseourregion-laggingenergyefficiencyinvestments(figure4)andtheuncheckedcapitalu?lityspendingiseffec?velysendingenergydollarsthatshouldremainruraleconomiestothefinanceindustryforpaymentondebt.
RenewingRuralCommunityEngagementandRelevanceforUSDA/RUSElectricProgramLoans
Weaskforyourassistancenotonlybecauseourlocaleconomiesandlands(andelectricitycosts)aredeartousbutbecausewean?cipateitcanreviverelevantdirec?onforElectricProgramloaning.Becauseimprovementsfromenergyefficiency,modernloadmanagementandlocalsolarrequireindividual/communityinvestmenttorealizeenergysavingsandenvironmentalbenefits,theimprovementsuniquelyembodysharedapprecia?onstheREAusedtoenjoy.Incontrast,verycostly,unwarranted,environmentallyunaccountableandimposingtransmissionfacili?estendtoundercutpublictrustintheRUSgoals.
Unliketransmissionaddi?onswhicharechallengedtoguaranteesavingsorenvironmentalbenefits,partneredu?lity/communityNTAinvestmentnotonlyassureslowerelectricbillsandCO2reduc?onsinthequickestandmostcost-effec?veways,butcaneliminatetheprimarysourceofrateandfeesincreases:ballooningcapitalexpenseforreplacementoflowvoltagetransmissionfacili?es.TheRUSmanybefamiliarwiththeReformingEnergyVision(REV)ini?a?veundertheNewYorkPSCwherereplacementofa$1billionsubsta?onwasavoidedusing$200millioninnon-transmissionalterna?ves.InWisconsin,DairylandPowerCoopera?ve(DPC)ispavingasimilarpathaddingload-reducingsolarfacili?esat15agingtransmissionfacili?es:hmp://bit.ly/DPC_substa?on_solar.Atleastthreeofthese
installa?onspartnerwithruraldevelopmentwithcustomersandbusinessesbuying20yearleasesonsolarproduc?onatlessthan$2perwam:hmp://www.rec.coop/content/transi?on-energy-0
Escala?ngruralelectricitycostsinWisconsinmustbechecked.Already,theythreatentheabilityofenergy-intensivebusinessesincludingdairyopera?onstoremaincompe??vewithbusinessesinotherstates.
TheRuralU?lityService’suniqueabilitytoleadtheshiifromrate-pressuringcapitalu?lityinvestmentstoNTA’sisevidentintheagency’sheavyemphasisonreplacementcapitalu?lityspendingintheElectricProgramloansgrantedin2016(figure5).Thebestpossiblewaytheagencycanpromotethenewpathistofulfilltherequestsweposeinthislemertoestablishresponsibleprecedence.
Thecost-effecBvenessandfeasibilityofruralelectricdevelopmentpartneringcommunity/uBlityspendinghasalreadybeendemonstrated.
Acost-benefitanalysisforapriorhighcapacitytransmissionproposalinWisconsinconductedbyPowersEngineering(hmp://bit.ly/Powers_Tes?mony)demonstratedthataone?meinvestmentof$19millionintargetedenergyefficiency,loadmanagementandcommunitysolarsupportatlowvoltagesubsta?onswouldavoidabout$170millioninlowvoltagetransmissionfacilityreplacementcostswhile:
• Stabilizingorloweringelectricbillsintheaffectedfootprintandbeyond• Allowingcustomersandbusinessestoinvestinsolarverycosteffec?vely• Accomodateflowthroughthetransmissionsystemrelievinganyfuturepoten/al
conges?onmoreeffec?velythana345kVtransmissionfacilityataminimalcostof$600million.
Wethankyouforthisopportunitytooutlineourgoals,makeourrequests.Wehopethatyoucansetaside?metomeetwithusinpersonandhelpustakefulladvantageofouropportunitytoprovidescopinginput.
Sincerely,
//SS//
DavidClumerRobDanielsonDavidGiffeyLaurieandRichardGraneyBarbaraGrenlieJohnHessDavidStanfieldMichaelMcDermomKa?eMcGrathChuckTennessen
cc:ChristopherMcLean,AssistantAdministrator,RuralU?li?esServiceU.S.SenatorTammyBaldwinU.S.SenatorRonJohnsonU.S.Representa?veMarkPocanU.S.Representa?veRonKindU.S.SenatorJoniErnst,CommimeeonAgriculture,Nutri?on&ForestryU.S.SenatorCharlesGrassley,CommimeeonAgriculture,Nutri?on&Forestry
FIGURE 1Figure 1
Footnotes - “ It’s our money. Which energy investment path shall we take?”
[5a]WIAverageResidenJalRateisHighestinMidwestin2015https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/state/avgprice_annual.xls
[5b]Only7stateshaveexperiencedelectricitycostincreaseshigherthanWisconsinsince2003.
Since2005whenWisconsinu;li;esbeganaddingchargesforagreatlyenlargedtransmissionsystem,ourelectricityrateshaverankedhighestorsecondhighestintheMidwest.Thoughoncebelowna;onalaverage,by2013onlysevenstatesfacedfasterclimbingratesthanWisconsin’s.[5]
FIGURE 2
This amount would triple WI’s current energy efficiency rebate program
Figure 3
Footnotes - “ It’s our money. Which energy investment path shall we take?”
[6b]WisconsinFocusonEnergySpendingin2007and2012.The2011EnergyEfficiencybudgetwas74%ofthebudgetfortheprogramin2007andin2012itwas81%ofthe2007amount.ProgramspendingintheWisconsiniscloseto$1permonthperresiden;alcustomerwhichislessthanspendinginsurroundingstates.
Source:hUps://www.focusonenergy.com/about/evalua;on-reports
Source:hUp://aceee.org/sites/default/files/publica;ons/researchreports/u1408.pdf
FIGURE 4
$3.6 Billion for RUS Electric Projects in 31 States Funded in 2016
Eight Distributed Generation and Efficiency Projects for Utilities
EdentonSolarLLC(NorthCarolina)$26,000,000for20MWsolarphotovoltaicrenewablefarm.
Plumas-SierraRuralElectricCooperaGve(CaliforniaandNevada)$7,000,000forsolarphotovoltaicrenewableprojects.
SouthMississippiElectricPowerAssociaGon$1,250,000forfivedistributedsolarphotovoltaicrenewableprojects.
SiouxValleyEnergy(SouthDakota,MinnesotaandIowa)$200,000forsolarphotovoltaicrenewableprojects.
WesternIowaPowerCooperaGve$525,000forasolarphotovoltaicrenewablegeneraGonsystem
DixieElectricCooperaGve(Alabama)$684,000forenergyefficiencyprojects.
MidwestEnergyCooperaGve(Michigan,Indiana,Ohio)$1,098,036forenergyefficiencyprojects.
FIGURE 5
top related