Montana Wind Working Group

Meeting minutes

Dec. 2, 2003

Participants
Name Agency
Bob Anderson Energy consultant
Timlynn Babitsky North American Rural Futures Institute (NARFI)
Peggy Beltrone Cascade County Commissioner
Georgia Brensdal MT Dept. of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
Joe Brignolo Fort Peck Tribes
Bob Brown Secretary of State
Dave Brockes New Harvest Energy
James Carkulis Exergy
Chris Christiaens Great Falls Working Group
Arend Collen MT Dept. of Natural Resources & Conservation (DNRC)
Larry Flowers National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
Fred Guardipee Blackfeet Tribal Council
Randy Hanson MT Dept. of Commerce
Mark Hines MT Dept. of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
Jim Jacobson Sun River Electric Cooperative
Van Jamison POWAIR
Wendy Kleinsasser WindPark Solutions America
Bill Pascoe Pascoe Energy Consulting
Jay St. Goddard  Blackfeet Tribal Chair
Gayle Shirley Secretary of State’s Office
William Talks About Blackfeet Tribal Council
Clifford Tailfeathers Blackfeet Tribal Council
Charles & Kathy Van Hook Wind Montana
R. Paul Williamson UM-College of Technology

North-central Montana Poverty Reduction Plan

Cascade County Commissioner Peggy Beltrone welcomed the Montana Wind Working Group (WWG) to Great Falls and reported on a plan to reduce poverty in northcentral Montana that she has helped to develop over the past couple of years. The plan, which is available at www.montanacv.org, includes a wind power development component.

The plan is one of four being considered nationally for funding by the Northwest Area Foundation. [Note: Since this meeting, the group was awarded $12 million. Congratulations!]

Wind GIS Maps

Peggy described the wind GIS maps that Cascade County has prepared to encourage developers to explore the county for developable wind project sites. She said Cascade County recognized that the state does not have the money needed to participate in the wind boom and concluded that it must work proactively to attract well-financed developers.

The county drew from across its jurisdiction to assemble the maps. For example, it made use of information, experience and landowner contacts developed by the mosquito and weed districts. The county has been conducting additional wind energy assessments to refine existing data, especially where it believes the wind potential has been underestimated.

Meeting Minutes

The minutes from the Oct. 30 meeting of the WWG were approved without revision.  A suggestion was made to post the meeting agendas, as well as the minutes, on the Energize Montana Web site. Gayle said she will send agendas to DEQ so they can be posted.

NorthWestern Energy Interconnection

James Carkulis gave an update on NorthWestern Energy’s interconnection requirements.  He said he has had projects in the interconnection queue since December 2000 without signing an interconnection agreement. He said NorthWestern has adopted a philosophy that wind generation must look like synchronized generation to be interconnected.  He said NorthWestern wants wind projects to conform to 0.9 following to 0.9 leading specifications. He pointed out that induction motors do not provide leading.

James also reported that NorthWestern is limiting flicker to 1 percent; he said there is only one other utility in the country making this demand.  The restrictive flicker standard will not be an issue with smaller projects.  James assured the group that his first project, 9 megawatts, meets the 1 percent flicker standard, but he doesn’t want to sign off on this standard because that may set a precedent that could adversely impact future large projects.

James said that if NorthWestern does not allow all wind projects, not just those in the default portfolio, to be absorbed into their system, complying with the narrow imbalance requirements discriminates against other, alternative suppliers. This creates a market barrier and denies access to customers who want to select other suppliers.

Larry Flowers said he would have someone within the Wind Powering America program review NorthWestern’s interconnection and integration requirements if we would send them to him. He said the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) will bring in experts to discuss transmission and integration issues in general forums but will not debate specific projects.

Bob Anderson said FERC has been trying to resolve interconnection difficulties at a national level.  FERC’s small generator (20MW and less) interconnection rulemaking has been ongoing for quite some time and is not going well.

Larry asked whether NorthWestern participates in the Utility Wind Interest Group (UWIG) where these kinds of technical utility matters are discussed. Bill Pascoe said NorthWestern has not been part of UWIG discussions, although the company has considered participating in the past and might consider it again.

WWG members agreed that NorthWestern should be encouraged to be part of future UWIG discussions. Bill thought NorthWestern may be more willing to participate now that their financial difficulties are being resolved in bankruptcy court. He said NorthWestern is unfamiliar with wind and taking a conservative approach. He thought their transmission folks would be willing to discuss our concerns.

Someone noted that Montana-Dakota Utilities was connecting 40MW of wind generation in North Dakota and suggested studying that company’s interconnection requirements.

Bob Anderson pointed out that the liquidity of the ancillary-services market should be tied into our discussion of interconnection requirements.  He said penalties could be removed or discussions of doing so could occur.

Paul Williamson suggested that the WWG Transmission and Integration Subcommittee should address and resolve these and other similar problems identified in the future. The group agreed.

Mission Statement

Participants approved of the revised WWG mission statement and agreed that it should be adopted unless substantive objections were sent to Gayle Shirley or Van Jamison within two weeks.

Fort Peck Wind Project

Joe Brignolo described a wind project that he is helping to manage on the Fort Peck Reservation at Poplar. It involves installation of a single 660-kilowatt Vestas turbine just north of the tribal office building. The average annual wind speed at the site is 7.4 meters per second.

Montana-Dakota Utilities has agreed to “net-meter” the entire output from this project.  They originally proposed buying the power at $.018 per kilowatt hour, their “avoided cost,” but subsequently agreed to this more favorable arrangement.  Montana Dakota Utilities has stressed this is a one-time only arrangement and will not set a precedent.

The tribe plans to use the money it will save on utility expenses to fund additional energy saving and weatherization activities and programs. Vestas has offered to train tribal members on wind turbine maintenance.

The Fort Peck tribe is investigating how it might expand upon this initial project.  There is a 115 kilovolt transmission line just north of the tribal building. The close proximity of transmission might permit the tribe to expand their project and sell bulk wholesale power under a long-term contract.

The Energy Bill contains provisions requiring the federal government to buy 2.5 percent of its power from “green” sources by 2005.  This requirement could open doors for direct sales to federal facilities within Montana or foster rapid expansion of “green tag” trading markets.  The tribe plans to use its wind power project to help initiate broader local empowerment, human resource development, and economic stimulus measures. 

Farm Bill Workshops

The WWG decided to conduct four workshops to educate farmers and ranchers about the opportunity to apply for USDA funds to help underwrite the cost of wind development in Montana. The Farm Bill makes grants available for projects like wind power development because they are considered an alternative farm crop.

USDA can grant $500,000 or 25 percent of project costs—whichever is greater—to wind power projects. The workshops will inform participants about the funding opportunity, provide a primer on wind development, and provide concrete examples from past successful applicants on how to effectively negotiate the application process.

The WWG selected Billings, Glendive, Havre and Great Falls for the workshops. They have been scheduled as follows:

Coordinators for the individual sessions were identified. They are:

Local coordinators are responsible for identifying and arranging workshop venues, arranging publicity, and soliciting support from local sponsors for the events. They should also make sure audio-visual equipment is available at each venue and meeting space is adequate for conducting the workshop.

A statewide core planning group was also selected. It will be responsible for developing the workshop agenda, identifying and confirming speakers, arranging transportation, and soliciting sponsorship from statewide organizations. Van Jamison and Gayle Shirley will head the group and Mark Hines, Timlynn Babitsky and Paul Williamson will participate. If anyone else wants to be involved, they should let Van know via e-mail (wakanpowair@msn.com).

The Secretary of State will contact the Montana office of the USDA to invite the state "9006 USDA Coordinator" to attend all four of the workshops and explain the application process and eligibility requirements to participants.

Joe Brignolo agreed to videotape the workshops for distribution to interested groups or individuals who cannot attend one of the sessions.

The WWG also agreed that it may hold additional workshops in other parts of Montana if there is sufficient interest. The group can use local presenters and materials prepared for the original four workshops.

Someone raised the question of how the Farm Bill applies to the tribes. The WWG will make sure the USDA presenter at the workshops addresses this question explicitly.  In addition, NREL will send out a series of newsletters specifically to the tribes.

Harvesting Clean Energy Conference

The group discussed its ability and desire to help organize the next Harvesting Clean Energy Conference in Montana. Gayle Shirley reported that a local organizing group will need to raise $30,000 to $35,000 to underwrite the cost of hosting the event. Climate Solutions has a core group of contributors, so the fundraising task is less daunting than it might first appear. Climate Solutions will also supply a halftime person to organize the conference.

Helena was initially suggested as a location for this event to entice legislators to participate. Chris Christians and others thought getting legislators to attend was unlikely given their schedules. Peggy Beltrone suggested holding it in December 2004 at the fairgrounds in Great Falls as an alternative.

Gayle said interested parties should attend a Dec. 8 meeting in the Secretary of State’s Office with Rhys Roth of Climate Solutions.

Wind Powering America Update

Larry Flowers said Wind Powering America is focusing its activities in four areas: rural economic development, support of state activities, developing power partnerships with, for example, cooperatives and NRECA, and small wind applications. WPA is currently assisting wind working groups in 29 states, as well as wind interest groups with some tribes.

Larry pointed out that Texas, California, Oregon, Minnesota and Iowa have emerged as the leaders in wind power development primarily because of the policy leadership the elected officials in these states have shown. 

He said Montana is a priority state for WPA because it has one of the country’s best wind resources and has done little to develop it.  Larry reported that Montana has 77,000 megawatts of economically developable winds. He said WPA would send wind experts to Montana to speak to our commissions and/or legislators if they are invited.

Larry reported that Secretary of State Brown’s effort to promote wind development on state trust lands has moved Montana to the “middle of the pack” when previously Montana had done nothing. Texas, New Mexico and California have already developed wind projects on state lands. 

Economic Impacts of Wind Power Development

Larry said NREL will analyze the flow of money from a $40 million wind project to identify where the money goes, how long it’s retained in the local community and who it benefits. This information will be compared to the monetary flow from comparable natural gas and coal plants. When the comparisons have been completed, they will be made public so people can learn the relative benefits of different types of generation projects.

Mike Costanti at MSU has a contract with WPA to study the potential economic development impacts from wind power in four Montana counties early next year. Larry said WPA has also begun to look into how utilities can “firm” wind power using hydroelectric dams.

Larry said that, in recent competitive new power generation bids to utilities, wind power projects are consistently offering significantly lower prices than coal or natural gas plants. That’s good news for wind since it’s “beating the pants off of the competition” in the marketplace. However, Larry reminded the WWG that moving power from rural areas with high winds to loads makes the delivered power cost comparable to generating power from lower quality wind resources near loads. Transmission and transmission costs matter if Montana wants to harvest its “wind crops.”

In summary, Larry said, “If you don’t want the future to be all about natural gas, you need to build some transmission.”

Next WWG Meeting

The group decided to meet again sometime after the workshops on the Farm Bill have been held.

Quote of the Day

“You’re either at the table or you’re on the menu!”