By Matthew L. Wald of The New York Times

A major Midwest utility, Ameren, said Monday that it had created a new subsidiary to build transmission lines in Missouri and Illinois that will bring more wind power onto the grid – not to mention coal power, from clean to conventional.

Saying that it was encouraged by a law enacted in June in Illinois that is supposed to streamline the approval process,  Ameren, based in St. Louis, said it had $3 billion in potential new power lines in its sights. Financing will be easier to secure under this new structure, said Maureen Borkowski, who was named president and chief executive of the new subsidiary, the Ameren Transmission Company. Creation of a new utility to specialize in transmission is an unusual step, but Ms. Borkowski said that creating a new company that is a “transparent entity in the marketplace” would help it attract capital.

The Midwest Independent System Operator, the grid within which Ameren lies, has 5,000 megawatts of wind projects that want to be connected, she said. If wind is added to the grid in large quantities, the company’s 64,000-square-mile territory will become a thoroughfare for that energy, she said.

But the existing system is congested, she said, meaning that cheap electricity is kept out of the market at times because there is no way to get it to where it is needed, and more expensive generators are run instead. Often, that cheap electricity is from coal; this situation is common in the United States.

In addition, Ameren’s projects would connect to two planned coal plants that would capture the carbon dioxide they emit — Futuregen and the Taylorville Energy Center — and a conventional coal plant now under construction, thePrairie State Energy Campus. And the lines would link to Ameren’s existingGrand Tower plant on the Mississippi River, which was built in 1924 to run on coal but now uses natural gas.

GPACE will be presenting on Wednesday, May 19th at the Tri-State Generation and Transmission public resource planning meeting at Tri-State headquarters in Westminster, Colorado.

This public resource planning process that Tri-State is undergoing was brought about as part of a settlement agreement primarily involving the Colorado Public Utilities Commission, Colorado Governor Ritter’s office, Western Resource Advocates, and Tri-State, whereby an existing docket to consider PUC regulation of Tri-State was closed without action in exchange for this public resource planning process.

The process is non-binding; that is, Tri-State is not obligated to accept any of the recommendations or answer public questions, but it does provide a forum for important public information and scrutiny of Tri-State’s resource planning.

Tri-State has no member coops in Kansas, so why is the resource planning process of a Colorado-based rural electric coop of interest or importance to Kansans?

Recall that it was in response to an RFP for baseload capacity from Tri-State that Sunflower Electric (in Kansas) let their permit for the 660mw Sand Sage project expire (after the initial granting and an extension) and began the process of putting together the current plan to build three huge additional coal plants at Holcomb for out-of-state utilities.  So far as we know (the details have not been discussed since rural electric coops do not have to allow public or regulatory review of their plans) Tri-State would be the equity owner of 80% of the electric power produced by the proposed 895mw coal-fired plant at the Holcomb Station, and they would own 80% of the equity value of the plant.  Beyond that, not much is known about the details of the business arrangement between Tri-State and Sunflower regarding the proposed plant, or any future development at Holcomb.

We do know that Tri-State reps recently acknowledged in one of the public meetings that they currently have developed no transmission plans for Holcomb – which seems to be at odds with claims by Sunflower and Holcomb supporters in Kansas that the plant is critical to transmission for wind energy.  That fact is also seemingly not in compliance with the settlement agreement between the Governor and Sunflower, which calls for transmission to be built.

Tri-State is also on record stating that they do not see the Holcomb coal plant as a near term baseload solution under any circumstances, which again, is at odds with claims by Sunflower and Kansas coal supporters that the plants will start construction within a year and employ people to combat the recession.

And, Tri-State’s own load forecasts acknowledge that they do not have near-term need for the baseload capacity represented by the proposed Kansas coal plant.

Yet, their 2009 annual report shows that they have spent $51.3 million, excluding the cost of land and water rights, developing the units at Holcomb as of December 31, 2009.

So, what’s currently happening at the Tri-State public resource planning meetings (and the ultimate outcome of their resource planning process) will have a tremendous impact upon Kansans, since the fate of the proposed 895mw coal-fired plant, and the possible addition of two more huge coal plants as part of the proposed Holcomb Station expansion, may be impacted.

Even if you can’t attend the May 19th meeting near Denver, Kansans can register and participate in the public meeting via webinar here.

Scott Allegrucci

Executive Director

From BrighterEnergy.org

Energy company OG&E has energized a new $200 million transmission line it says will open up a “vital parthway” for wind power generators in northwestern Oklahoma.

The 345-kilovolt “Windspeed” transmission line runs for 121 miles from Woodward to Oklahoma City.

It connects in to OG&E’s new high-voltage substation near Woodward where it links in with the existing grid.

Oklahoma Gas & Electric, a subsidiary of NYSE-listed OGE Energy Corp, said its new substation at Woodward would serve as a “renewable energy hub” as more and more wind farms are developed in the area.

“This is an important milestone in the ongoing development of renewable energy in our state,” said Pete Delaney, OGE Energy Corp. chairman, president and CEO.

“The new line supports a more robust build out of Oklahoma’s wind potential; producing revenue for landowners, creating jobs, increasing tax revenues in northwestern Oklahoma, and delivering renewable energy to Oklahoma consumers.”

The Windspeed transmission project was originally approved by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission back in 2008.

Steel structures for the transmission project were provided by Valmont Industries, based in Omaha, Nebraska.

6 in a series of 7

As the Kansas Department of Health and Environment considers the new air quality permit request for Sunflower Electric’s proposed 895mw coal-fired power plant, and before KDHE announces the schedule for public hearings, it seems like a good time to ask:  Why are we still paying attention to the whole coal plant proposal?

We’re answering this basic question in a series of seven consecutive blogs/questions.  Here’s the sixth.

Speaking of renewable energy, don’t we need the coal plant to get transmission lines so that we can export our wind energy?

No, absolutely not.  The bulk of the transmission that would come as part of the coal plant project would be to move electricity from the plant to its primary owners in Colorado – not to improve or enhance the overall transmission grid in Kansas.

An operational coal plant cannot efficiently ramp up or ramp down production of electricity.  Therefore, once a large coal plant is burning coal (already purchased on long-term contracts) to generate electricity, it will flood available transmission with that electricity.  Transmission lines have a finite capacity – that is, they can only move a certain volume of electrons, like a two, four, or eight-lane highway each moves a certain number of vehicles.  As a result, the coal plant will effectively crowd out other sources of electricity, like wind turbines.

Additionally, a regional plan to build high-capacity transmission tapping the vast wind energy reserves of western Kansas and the Texas and Oklahoma panhandles is already underway independent of the proposed coal plant.

Also worth noting: the best markets for Kansas wind energy – with the highest demand for renewably generated electricity, the least ability to meet those demands, and the lowest costs for delivering the electricity – are arguably to the east/southeast, not to the west where there are existing local wind energy reserves and a phase-shift barrier.

Certainly, construction of a power plant will create some transmission infrastructure in order to move electricity toward demand.  But that does not need to be a coal plant – it could be a natural gas plant as well.  And we are seeing development of transmission infrastructure independent of any new power plants.

So it is not accurate to say that Kansas must have this proposed coal plant in order to get transmission infrastructure for wind energy.

This is #6 of 7 questions – check back tomorrow for #7.

5 in a series of 7

As the Kansas Department of Health and Environment considers the new air quality permit request for Sunflower Electric’s proposed 895mw coal-fired power plant, and before KDHE announces the schedule for public hearings, it seems like a good time to ask:  Why are we still paying attention to the whole coal plant proposal?

We’re answering this basic question in a series of seven consecutive blogs/questions.  Here’s the fifth.

Okay…but the coal plant will provide needed jobs and economic development to Kansas in the midst of the worst recession in recent memory.  How can we say no to that?

Because it won’t – not anytime soon.  It is absolutely important to create jobs and investment in this recession.  But given all the regulatory, legal, and financial issues with the proposed project, construction won’t begin for at least a couple of years.  So, the construction jobs won’t exist until then.   How does that help Kansans now?

When they were lobbying the legislature, coal plant supporters claimed the proposed project would generate thousands of construction jobs for Kansans and as many as 400 permanent full-time jobs in the state.   But here’s the fine print:

• Tri-State is driving the project, and has a long relationship with its own coal plant builder – and it isn’t a Kansas company, or a union company.
• The specialized nature of most of the construction, and the absence of many of the needed specialized laborers in Kansas, means that the vast majority of the construction jobs will go to temporary workers from out-of-state.  Once construction finishes, they and their money would leave Kansas.
• Well after the settlement agreement was signed, Sunflower Electric quietly revised the projected permanent jobs figure down to 50.
• As of 2008, the Colorado utility that will own most of the plant and its power had given Sunflower Electric $46 million in direct payments, EXCLUDING the purchase of land and water rights in Kansas.  We know coal plant supporters hired a small army of lobbyists and lawyers (many from out of state) and bought a bunch of paid advertising to sell the project, but how many jobs has the coal plant created in Kansas with all that money in the midst of this recession?

While Kansas needed jobs and economic development, coal plant supporters blocked or slowed needed transmission and other energy investments that could have put Kansans to work.  In fact, in the midst of the worst recession in recent memory Sunflower and their allies forced Kansas to say “no” to critical jobs, investment, and revenue from native Kansas fuels and the booming renewable energy sector.  All for some coal plants that will import fuel and construction workers, and send water, electricity, and billions of dollars to other states – long after the current recession has turned toward recovery.

This is #5 of 7 questions – check back tomorrow for #6.

From the Governor’s Wind Energy Coalition

Iowa Governor Culver and Rhode Island Governor Carcieri Release Great Expectations: The Governors’ Wind Energy Coalition’s 2010 Recommendations

Iowa Governor Chet Culver and Rhode Island Governor Donald L. Carcieri today released Great Expectations: U.S. Wind Energy Development, the Governors’ Wind Energy Coalition’s 2010 Recommendations. Governor Culver and Governor Carcieri are the chair and vice chair of the 29-state organization.

“The title of the governors’ recommendations could not be more apt,” said Governor Culver.  “Americans have great expectations for the nation’s energy future, and these recommendations from the nation’s governors to Congress and the Administration meet those expectations,” Governor Culver said.

“This is the first set of comprehensive wind energy recommendations ever submitted to Congress by a group of the nation’s governors,” said Governor Carcieri. “These recommendations could not be more timely.  Congressional action on the energy bill seems to have stalled.  It is our hope that these recommendations — and the national bipartisan consensus they represent — will advance the energy deliberations now under way in Congress,” Governor Carcieri stated.

The recommendations call for the following actions by both Congress and the Administration:

• Adopt a Renewable Electricity Standard.

• Develop New Interstate Electric Transmission System Infrastructure as Needed to Provide Access to Premier Renewable Energy Resources both On-Shore and Offshore.

• Fully Support Coastal, Deep Water, and Offshore Wind Energy Technology and Transmission Research and Development.

• Streamline Permitting Processes for Both Offshore and On-Shore Wind Energy Development Projects.

• Expand the U.S. Department of Energy’s Work with the States and the Wind Industry to Accelerate Innovation.

• Extend the Treasury Department Grant Program in Lieu of the Investment Tax Credit, and Adopt a Long-Term Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit With Provisions to Broaden the Pool of Eligible Investors.

Great Expectations: U.S. Wind Energy Development, Governors’ Wind Energy Coalition’s 2010 Wind Energy Recommendations is available at www.GovernorsWindEnergyCoalition.org