I like chocolate. It makes me happy. When I'm happy, everyone else is happy. Therefore, providing me with chocolate provides a benefit to others and so they shall pay for my chocolate.
What? You think that sounds stupid? Of course it's stupid! But it saves me money on the cost of chocolate. The same could be said for big wind's effort to shift the costs of connecting new wind generators onto captive ratepayers that don't need the "benefit" of the wind project, or expanded transmission to serve it.
It's subtle, but I picked it up a while ago, and the fun appears to be only beginning with the latest big wind scam. North Dakota Public Service Commissioners were recently the targets of this scam at a meeting reported in the media.
What? You think that sounds stupid? Of course it's stupid! But it saves me money on the cost of chocolate. The same could be said for big wind's effort to shift the costs of connecting new wind generators onto captive ratepayers that don't need the "benefit" of the wind project, or expanded transmission to serve it.
It's subtle, but I picked it up a while ago, and the fun appears to be only beginning with the latest big wind scam. North Dakota Public Service Commissioners were recently the targets of this scam at a meeting reported in the media.
The topic came up Wednesday in a discussion involving the Public Service Commission and wind industry representatives, who told regulators that the issue is causing companies to think twice about locating a project in the state.
What's the problem?
Wind companies are having a tough time obtaining approval from grid operators to build new projects. Proposed wind farms -- and other types of power generators -- must first undergo an engineering study to determine their impact on the grid and identify any necessary updates to power lines or other parts of the transmission system.
Sometimes, developers learn that their projects will prompt upgrades with a hefty price tag in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, said Beth Soholt, executive director of the Clean Grid Alliance. The cost currently falls entirely to the developers putting forward the projects, though the upgrades can provide benefits to others.
If you plug something new into an existing system, it's going to affect the system. The operators of the electric system require necessary studies to determine the effect of plugging in the new generator. The cost of plugging in the generator is the responsibility of the generator, just as if you built a new home in the middle of the woods and requested electric service. You would pay the cost of running the service drop from the nearest pole because it's only serving you. A generator must pay the costs of connecting, plus the costs of any changes that must be made to the system to accommodate the connection and the additional amount of electricity flowing through the system coming from the new generator. This has been standard procedure for years because it makes sense. Generators are merchants who sell the power they produce into regional markets. The cost of producing the power is borne by the generator. The generator keeps all of its profits.
But now big wind wants captive ratepayers to pay for the cost of upgrades to the grid caused by the addition of new wind generators. This can amount of hundreds of millions of dollars for a single project. If big wind can get someone else to pay these costs, then the generator spends less to connect and can therefore discount the price of the power it sells to customers.
Big wind is trying to convince regulators that upgrades to the grid made necessary only by the connection of new wind generators provide some kind of "benefit" to ratepayers. Because grid upgrades have to be made to connect wind, they believe they can concoct some kind of "benefit" for all grid users. Not hardly. It is not a "benefit" if you don't need it, and the grid works just fine without the upgrades caused by connection of big wind generators. To do this would completely upend the way interconnections to the existing grid are paid for and shift cost from the generator to the ratepayers. If the scheme is changed so that wind generators don't have to pay the cost of upgrades they make necessary, shouldn't we also extend that to new gas generators, new nuclear generators... even... *gasp* new coal generators? Of course, it would apply to all. And it would raise your electric bill significantly. But what does big wind care, as long as they get their piece of the pie?
But why? Because big wind is freaking out over the end of the federal production tax credit, which gives them tax credits for all the electricity they generate. Without that income stream in the future, the price of wind is going to increase... a lot. Big wind is looking for its next subsidy -- avoiding the cost of upgrading transmission to serve it. It wants to shift those costs on to everyone else.
Adding insult to injury, much of the new wind generation in the queue is planned for export, however the cost of upgrading the grid to enable the new connection would be charged to ratepayers in the generation region. The ones using the "cheap" new power in other regions would avoid the costs they would have to pay if the upgrades were the responsibility of the generator and therefore included in the price of their electricity.
Big wind's subsidy gravy train needs to be derailed. Perhaps they think they're fooling the general public with this hogwash, but are they really fooling regulators? Probably not, but if none of the general public objects to this nonsense, it could be just a wink and a nod away.
But now big wind wants captive ratepayers to pay for the cost of upgrades to the grid caused by the addition of new wind generators. This can amount of hundreds of millions of dollars for a single project. If big wind can get someone else to pay these costs, then the generator spends less to connect and can therefore discount the price of the power it sells to customers.
Big wind is trying to convince regulators that upgrades to the grid made necessary only by the connection of new wind generators provide some kind of "benefit" to ratepayers. Because grid upgrades have to be made to connect wind, they believe they can concoct some kind of "benefit" for all grid users. Not hardly. It is not a "benefit" if you don't need it, and the grid works just fine without the upgrades caused by connection of big wind generators. To do this would completely upend the way interconnections to the existing grid are paid for and shift cost from the generator to the ratepayers. If the scheme is changed so that wind generators don't have to pay the cost of upgrades they make necessary, shouldn't we also extend that to new gas generators, new nuclear generators... even... *gasp* new coal generators? Of course, it would apply to all. And it would raise your electric bill significantly. But what does big wind care, as long as they get their piece of the pie?
But why? Because big wind is freaking out over the end of the federal production tax credit, which gives them tax credits for all the electricity they generate. Without that income stream in the future, the price of wind is going to increase... a lot. Big wind is looking for its next subsidy -- avoiding the cost of upgrading transmission to serve it. It wants to shift those costs on to everyone else.
Adding insult to injury, much of the new wind generation in the queue is planned for export, however the cost of upgrading the grid to enable the new connection would be charged to ratepayers in the generation region. The ones using the "cheap" new power in other regions would avoid the costs they would have to pay if the upgrades were the responsibility of the generator and therefore included in the price of their electricity.
Big wind's subsidy gravy train needs to be derailed. Perhaps they think they're fooling the general public with this hogwash, but are they really fooling regulators? Probably not, but if none of the general public objects to this nonsense, it could be just a wink and a nod away.
RSS Feed