The federal energy regulatory commission agency issued a ruling this week stating that Bonneville Power Association's decision last spring to curtail wind power in favor of hydropower was "discriminatory."
New Hampshire, USA -- In May 2011, after record snowmelt caused a surge in cheap hydropower for Bonneville Power Association (BPA), the utility made a bold move and decided that it would not accept wind power from wind farms with which it had signed power purchase agreements.
The decision, which came down through an Environmental Redispatch Record of Decision, allowed BPA to curtail wind generation during times of high hydropower generation, lower electric demand, and high wind generation without any compensation to wind project owners. The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) and other members of the wind industry at the time said that the decision could potentially cost wind companies tens of millions of dollars and stifle new investment in the Pacific Northwest. When wind farms are curtailed, owners cannot collect production tax credits.
Iberdrola Renewables, PacifiCorp, NextEra Energy Resources, Invenergy Wind North America and Horizon Wind Energy filed a petition against BPA with the federal energy regulatory council (FERC) on June 13.
On Tuesday, FERC ruled in favor of the wind power developers, stating that BPA's policy “diminishes open access to transmission and results in Bonneville providing transmission service to others on terms and conditions that are not comparable to those it provides itself.”
BPA is now tasked with revising its policy.
In the ruling, FERC acknowledged the difficulties facing both sides of the dispute. BPA had always contended that it was forced to curtail the wind power in order to meet environmental regulations for the protection of salmon. FERC also stated that had more transmission been in place for BPA, it could have pushed out some of the excess electricity to neighboring utilities.
Wind farm owners contended that BPA could have sold the excess power to neighboring utilities under a “negative pricing” situation in which BPA would pay California utilities to shut down their own generating assets. BPA had opted not to do that.
Michael Goggin, manager of transmission policy at the American Wind Energy Association said in an article in Wind Power Monthly: "It’s a major victory for wind companies. They got everything they asked for."
The wind farm owners have also reportedly filed a suit in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that also challenges BPA.
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/12/wind-wins-ferc-rules-bpa-curtailment-of-wind-power-discriminatory
New Hampshire, USA -- In May 2011, after record snowmelt caused a surge in cheap hydropower for Bonneville Power Association (BPA), the utility made a bold move and decided that it would not accept wind power from wind farms with which it had signed power purchase agreements.
The decision, which came down through an Environmental Redispatch Record of Decision, allowed BPA to curtail wind generation during times of high hydropower generation, lower electric demand, and high wind generation without any compensation to wind project owners. The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) and other members of the wind industry at the time said that the decision could potentially cost wind companies tens of millions of dollars and stifle new investment in the Pacific Northwest. When wind farms are curtailed, owners cannot collect production tax credits.
Iberdrola Renewables, PacifiCorp, NextEra Energy Resources, Invenergy Wind North America and Horizon Wind Energy filed a petition against BPA with the federal energy regulatory council (FERC) on June 13.
On Tuesday, FERC ruled in favor of the wind power developers, stating that BPA's policy “diminishes open access to transmission and results in Bonneville providing transmission service to others on terms and conditions that are not comparable to those it provides itself.”
BPA is now tasked with revising its policy.
In the ruling, FERC acknowledged the difficulties facing both sides of the dispute. BPA had always contended that it was forced to curtail the wind power in order to meet environmental regulations for the protection of salmon. FERC also stated that had more transmission been in place for BPA, it could have pushed out some of the excess electricity to neighboring utilities.
Wind farm owners contended that BPA could have sold the excess power to neighboring utilities under a “negative pricing” situation in which BPA would pay California utilities to shut down their own generating assets. BPA had opted not to do that.
Michael Goggin, manager of transmission policy at the American Wind Energy Association said in an article in Wind Power Monthly: "It’s a major victory for wind companies. They got everything they asked for."
The wind farm owners have also reportedly filed a suit in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that also challenges BPA.
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/12/wind-wins-ferc-rules-bpa-curtailment-of-wind-power-discriminatory
No comments:
Post a Comment