Skip Maine state header navigation
Recommendations of the Subcommittee on Small and
Community-Scale Wind
Governor’s Taskforce on Windpower
Carpe Ventem
Currently, approximately 1%
of Maine’s electrical generation is from wind power, and a tinier percentage than
that comes from small and community-owned wind generators. Yet the state has
enough potential windpower resources to provide a far higher percentage. The
benefits of wind power are not just available in the large-scale setting of
wind farms where the generated power is sold to electrical utilities.
Economically and socially beneficial
applications using appliance-sized up to commercial-sized wind turbines
on a smaller scale are also possible. The purpose of this report is to present
at a high level the potential benefits
of and barriers to small and community scale wind power in Maine. We conclude
with recommendations to remove barriers and promote additional small and
community wind in Maine
Our recommendations cover three sizes of wind generators:
1. Small, so-called “appliance” sized turbines for individual residences or small businesses (up to about 20-25 kW);[SAF2]
2. Medium
sized turbines that that are
above appliance-sized up to 250 kW, may be at roughly the state’s
net metering limit (100 kW) that might be useful for groups of homes, schools,
or larger electricity users; [SAF3]
3. Larger
projects
comprised of turbines in the 1-5 mW scaleexceeding
the medium-sized class, ranging from the typical 660 kW machines to 2 Mw
turbines. Ownership in these projects has
a primary community component, though there may be a
developer involved due to financing and technical resources needed
to complete a project. .[SAF4]
Differentiating among the three scales of community wind becomes important for some of the particular recommendations below.
Ownership Patterns
Small
and community wind is defined not only by its smaller size ,
but also by its ownership pattern. By definition the category excludes
windpower development by commercial windpower developers as primary owners.
Community wind is defined as generation capability owned by individuals or
groups of local investors forming LLCs, or by local
institutions such as hospitals or businesses, or by wind projects developed and installed on public property by a municipal
entity, such as a municipal utility, school district, county jail, or other
small jurisdiction. These owners may partner with commercial developers for
technical or financial reasons.
One ownership model of particular interest is based on the so-called Minnesota “Flip Model”, which allows outside investors to become a partner by underwriting up to 45% of the cost of the project in return for the Federal income tax benefits. Ownership of the project is flipped back to the local entity when the Federal tax benefits cease after 10 years.
Small and community wind projects have the potential to positively effect public acceptance of windpower. It is anticipated that the eventual appearance of wind turbines in many locations spread across the state will raise public awareness that wind indeed is a usable resource for power generation and that technology exists to exploit it. With increasing public awareness of the contribution of fossil fuel generation to global warming, wind power will likely come to be seen as a good way for citizens to take responsibility for and mitigate the environmental impact of traditional electricity generation. Community wind projects provide an important opportunity to educate the general public on issues associated with climate change, reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, and alternative energy sources. By their nature, community wind projects do not raise some of the issues that larger-scale projects do. These aspects of community wind should be taken advantage of, and means that the value of community wind projects go beyond basic economics.
While our subcommittee viewed the major potential of community wind as primarily educational, the point should not be lost that in some countries with major windpower contributions to the grid, community wind is the dominant form of ownership.
For example, eighty-four percent of the turbines in Denmark are owned by residents instead of commercial investors (Bolinger, 2004). In Germany 88% of the turbines are community owned (Bolinger,2004) This picture offers evidence that, over the long term, community wind in Maine could move from small scale educational and awareness-raising efforts to larger scale contributions to the electricity generation system.
A study developed by the
University of Minnesota determined that community
wind in the United States
has a greater economic impact on local economies than does
corporate wind (Kildegaard & Myers-Kuykindall,
2006). According to the study, “community wind has four times the economic
impact on local value added, and 2.8
times the impact on local
job creation, relative to a corporate-owned development”(2006,
21).
Recommendations
· For use/adoption in towns statewide to incent the development of community wind
· Address issues of potential community concern including setbacks, height, and noise issues
· Include consideration of the three general classes of community-scale wind (appliance-scale, medium, and larger).
4. Provide financial incentives/economic
assistance
· Redefine PUC proximity rule such that proximity means within a service territory
· Develop revolving loan program (such as through Efficiency Maine )to assist feasibility studies. PUC currently has a program for renewables that is geared to construction; the program’s rules should be refined so that work at the feasibility stage would be eligible as well.
· Allow net billing at or below 100Kw for generation capacity in group ownership
· Offer rebates for small installations (appliance size) similar to the solar rebate program presently offered at the PUC. Could be done as an expansion of existing solar program recognizing wind power as an equally emerging technology to solar with better paybacks and fewer technical drawbacks. Stipulation would be that installations be done at sites that at a minimum demonstrate class 3 wind capability on AWS True wind maps or other wind data.
·
BETR treatment for
wind generating equipment above the appliance
size.
·
Sales tax exemption for all small and community
wind power equipment
Currently involves 5 states ( Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, Montana, South Dakota)
5 Additional States planned for Spring 2008
6. Education System Recommendations
A. Investigate the need for additional research and development funding in the University of Maine System and recommend changes. Study to be to be complete by September 30th 2008.
B. Direct Community College System to Investigate Wind Power Training Needs. Study to be Complete by September 30th , 2008.[SAF11]
References
Bolinger, M. A. 2004. Community-owned wind power development:
The challenge of
applying the European
model in the United States, and how states are addressing
that challenge. Presented at Global Windpower 2004. Chicago: Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory
Kildegaard and Myers-Kuykindall, 2006. Contact Arne Kildegaard
at University of
Minnesota,
Morris for most recent copy- kildegac@morris.umn.edu
[SAF1]Are we officially small and community wind? I thing the small is the key. Through our discussions – “Community” is a much tougher to define and less obvious word. We are talking about scale of projects. Community is more about ownership structures which we have only touched on.
[SAF2]25KW being upper limit of definition of (small) which matches utility practices on connections.
[SAF3]This would be projects that used single turbines that are above appliance scale up to 100 or 250 KW perhaps FAA height limits would define the medium sized project turbines.
[SAF4]This includes projects that use turbines that exceed the medium class and range from the typical 660 kw up to 1.5 or 2 MW turbines. They fall into the small or community scale development because they do not trigger DEP site laws though they may employ turbines that are often seen in larger wind farms. Ownership has a local or community component in these projects though there may be a developer involved due to financing and technical ability. A single turbine up to 5 -6 turbines would be typical.
[SAF5]Recognize that wind towers are not buildings but depending on turbine size range from flagpoles to light poles, to cell tower heights or greater. Present ordinances often only look at height and sometimes treat even appliance scale towers or poles as buildings. This is in communities where there are parking lot lights poles that are far taller than the small wind tower poles.
[SAF6]Request a report back to the U&E committee on findings and recommended rules changes to correct deficiencies in present practices.
[SAF7] If we require the utility to respond to requests in a timely manner and for a reasonable fee, then the only assistance would be in resolving disputes in requirements or response. If we are talking about helping to make determinations on feasibility of projects that is a tougher situation. It could be that the new relationship that the PUC is taking on with the UM system might serve such a role on a limited basis. They will be doing MET studies and analysis of sites so this could be a source of info. Or a clearing house.
[SAF8]This at a minimum would have to be kept within the utility service territory. Crossing boundaries would be too difficult.
[SAF9]This ties to the above comment about raising the 100kw limit. Group ownership could be used if the proximity rules were eased, and then it would have to be in an equal shares type program so that distributing the generation values is manageable for the metering entity.
[SAF10]This is a fall back to the tax credit bill that is in Tax committee. If it falters or seems destined to die at approps, this will be an alternative.
[SAF11] This may or may not be a helpful change or may not be necessary. If a larger generator is installed because loads are bigger, the excess not consumed could be sold through the utility to the Standard offer provider under existing rules. The installer would still be replacing the KWH that they consumed at the full retail rate, it is only the excess that are under the NEB rules. This is the banking of generation and the banked energy expires presently after 12 months in the bank. Do we think banking is important enough to make this change? Personally, I think it hurts the smaller utilities the most as the pool paying for the infrastructure gets smaller. Grouping ownership in Net Energy Billing up to the 100KW limit might make sense for some situations. This can be a manageable system in my mind as long as the # of individuals that have ownership positions is limited and that they all have equal shares.
[SAF12]This issue is one item that is being discussed for all new renewable generation investment. In our case, to call it out in reference to promoting investment in wind power is appropriate