Tag: solar project

From CFACT

By Kevin Mooney

Using “Right of First Refusal” to legally impose a climate monopoly.

If liberal politicians maintain control of the governorship and expand their numbers in the Wisconsin state legislature this fall, green energy outfits will gain a monopoly.

The big utilities backing wind and solar projects already have vast financial resources and considerable influence over members of both parties in the statehouse. So says Annette Olson, the CEO of the MacIver Institute, a free market think tank in Wisconsin.

In an interview with Restoration News, Olson warns these same utilities could win their fight to pass legislation known as “Right of First Refusal” (ROFR) that would cancel any meaningful competition and dilute the ability of local government agencies to oppose projects their citizens view as harmful.

What Would This Sweetheart Deal Mean for Utilities?

A Right of First Refusal law would award incumbent utility companies a project without having to go through the competitive bidding process. This would give them a monopoly over new 345 kV transmission lines. That means any company not already providing transmission services in the state would be blocked from competing for construction of the proposed new regional transmission lines.

Transmission lines are critical for wind turbines because they carry electricity over long distances from rural wind farms to population centers. Engineers design them to prevent energy loss over long distances and mitigate against grid congestion. ROFR legislation sets 345kv as the standard because that’s required to move large amounts of electricity over long distances quickly.

Because they are part of the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) electrical grid, Wisconsin utilities will sometimes import or export electricity from or to other MISO members. Those could be as close as Illinois, or as far as Louisiana. If a utility has a generating shortfall of even one percent, only very high voltage transmission lines can deliver enough electricity quickly to fill that gap.

“The big utilities want a monopoly, and they don’t want any competition,” Olson said. “They have actually written a letter to the Trump administration and asked for them to intercede and stop the competition that is being allowed here in Wisconsin.”

“The utilities also have deep pockets,” she added, “so they are able to get a lot of lobbyists in the capitol building to discuss energy policy.”

This Legislative Fight Could Affect Election Day

Looking ahead to the midterm elections, Olson told Restoration News she would like to see candidates discuss the importance of farmland preservation and the need to eliminate government subsidies for renewables.

“We know from experience solar and wind are not reliable,” Olson said. “The price escalates with solar and wind farms. We are very concerned about the number of government subsidies. If they were profitable, they would not need government subsidies. The solar panels and wind turbines that sit on these great big tall posts, well they are eyesores. A lot of these [projects] in past have had no reclamations agreements made. So, if a solar panel is near the end of its lifetime, or gets hit with hail, who is responsible for the land and who is going to restore and reclaim it?”

New Report Critiques High Costs of Solar Project

The MacIver Institute has just released a report on a proposed solar energy farm that further highlights the importance of local autonomy. For the past year, Xcel Energy negotiated with St. Croix County to install a 300 MW facility known as the “Ten Mile Project.”

“This has been very contentious,” Olson said. “The citizens formed a small group when they became aware the solar project was happening and they really have been active in making sure the citizens attend the meetings of their local units of government.”

Xcel has been attempting to purchase what Olson said are “thousands and thousands of acres” to install solar panels. But after reaching an impasse with the county, Xcel is taking the position that it does not need county approval. Instead, Xcel is now working to get the project approved through the Public Service Commission (PSC) of Wisconsin. The MacIver report goes into detail about how much the solar project will cost St. Croix residents if Xcel prevails. The report said these costs are especially high when solar is compared with natural gas plants as an alternative.

MacIver takes the position that communities are right to object to solar because it is not an effective and sufficient source of energy to satisfy Wisconsin’s needs. The state’s solar capacity factor amounts to just 18.3 percent. Only 11 states have lower solar capacity than Wisconsin, according to the report.

Xcel’s current proposal calls for constructing 300 MW of solar panels with 300 MW of battery backup storage. Proponents of the project say Wisconsin needs it to replace the 598 MW of capacity of the Allen King coal plant across the river in Washington county, Minnesota, set to close by 2028.

The solar company has not filed an official application yet for the project, but it has submitted its engineering plan to the PSC. Concerned citizens can follow the PSC’s approval process for the solar project by referencing Docket 4220-CE-190. MacIver is not optimistic about what happens next.

“Unfortunately, the project is essentially guaranteed to be approved,” the report says. “As of right now, Wisconsin law encourages the development of renewable energy power plants which, although seemingly loved universally, always seem to provoke the ire of residents when they come to their town.”

Still Olson has faith in “power at the local level” and credits concerned citizens across the state for creating avenues for “honest discussions.” One group that has made headway, Farmland First, serves as a platform for residents opposed to wind and solar projects. Fred Schindler, a Clark County Supervisor, is one of the original members of the group, and is primarily concerned with the encroachment of wind power.

“We call it the big Wisconsin injustice,” Schindler said. “This is the 1250-foot setback.”

Setbacks refer to the minimum legal distance required between a wind turbine and property lines, public roads, and neighboring homes. The current setback rule, Schindler explained, was made in 2012 when turbines were 250 feet tall, but now they are anywhere from 600 hundred to 700 feet fall. This means the existing setback is hardly sufficient.

Elections Have Consequences

So, can local communities level the playing field against green energy companies bent on creating a monopoly? These projects are not clean and not green, but they are very expensive.

A new bill, State Senate Bill 3, would require wind and solar companies to get approval from local governments before a project could be brought before the PSC. The bill fell short in the last session. But it’s still an active proposal. Democrats oppose it, while Republicans would pass it if they had the majority.

It would seem the midterm elections are for all the marbles.

This article originally appeared at Restoration News