RenewNewEngland.com

Massachusetts Releases Independent Panel’s Review of Potential Health Impacts of Wind Turbines

On Tuesday of this week the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) and Department of Public Health (MDPH) released the Wind Turbine Health Impact Study: Report of Independent Expert Panel (January 2012).  Among other things, the expert panel was charged by the two agencies with identifying and characterizing the attributes of concern most commonly reported by individuals residing near wind power projects (e.g., noise, infrasound, vibration, and shadow flicker) and then – based on a evaluation of peer-reviewed scientific studies – assessing the magnitude and frequency of any potential impacts and risks to human health associated with the operation of these projects.  Findings by the expert panel include:

• Most epidemiologic literature on human response to wind turbines relates to self-reported “annoyance,” and this response appears to be a function of some combination of the sound itself, the sight of the turbine, and attitude towards the wind turbine project.
  • There is limited epidemiologic evidence suggesting an association between exposure to wind turbines and annoyance.
  • There is insufficient epidemiologic evidence to determine whether there is an association between noise from the wind turbines and annoyance independent from the effects of seeing a wind turbine and vice versa.
• The strongest epidemiological study suggests that there is not an association between noise from wind turbines and measures of psychological distress or mental health.
• Scientific evidence suggests that shadow flicker does not pose a risk of eliciting seizures as a result of photic stimulation.
• There is limited scientific evidence of an association between annoyance from prolonged shadow flicker (exceeding 30 minutes per day) and potential transitory cognitive and physical health effects.
• There is no evidence for a set of health effects, from exposure to wind turbines that could be characterized as “Wind Turbine Syndrome.”

MassDEP and MDPH will be holding three public meetings on the Report in February and will receive public comment until Monday, March 19 at 5 p.m.  Electronic comments may be submitted to:  WindTurbineDocket.MassDEP@MassMail.State.MA.US  How the Report will be used both in Massachusetts and elsewhere in the northeast will be interesting to follow.

 Additionally, although not part of the expert panel’s original charge, two members of the panel also provided MassDEP and MDPH an addendum, A Brief Review of Wind Power in Denmark, Germany, Sweden, Vermont, and Maine (January 2012).   The addendum looks at wind power development in the two New England states and three countries with the goal of identifying whether there are best practices or lessons learned that could benefit Massachusetts. The authors identify three factors they believe contribute to greater project success:

• Local planning efforts aimed at achieving national renewable energy goals,
• Community engagement, and
• Multi-pronged setback regulations.

 The addendum identifies the Fox Islands Wind project on Vinalhaven Island in Maine as the one project in Maine or Vermont that is “especially noteworthy” because of its success and community involvement.

Massachusetts DOER Submits Revised Biomass RPS Rules

Last week, the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (DOER) submitted a revised version of its draft of the new regulations for biomass facilities under its Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS) to the Massachusetts legislature. The revised draft regulations (pdf) include only relatively minor revisions to the previous draft, and not the wholesale revision many in the biomass and forest products industry had hoped for. If implemented, the new rules will dramatically increase the compliance burden for Massachusetts RPS-eligible biomass facilities, and could lead to a substantial reduction in the contribution of biomass to the Massachusetts RPS.

DOER released the first draft (pdf) of the regulations in September, 2010, followed by two public hearings that October (public comments here). The initial regulations were based on the controversial findings of a study conducted by the Manomet Center for Conservation Science on behalf of DOER, which concluded that use of biomass for electricity generation released more greenhouse gases than comparable fossil fuel generation. The proposed rules required biomass generation units to meet certain efficiency standards and submit a fuel supply plan and a lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions analysis showing a 50% reduction in greenhouse gases in order to be eligible for the Massachusetts RPS. The proposed rules also tightened the restrictions on eligible biomass fuels, and introduced a certification process for forest-derived biomass fuels intended to monitor and limit the amount of such fuels removed from harvest sites.

Despite the substantial lag between the end of the public comment period and the issuance of the revised draft rules, the revisions (yes, another pdf) are relatively minor. DOER concluded that the rule limiting the amount of eligible biomass material to be harvested from a site to 15% of the total amount harvested for forest producst was “arbitrary and insufficiently based on science.” In place of the 15% cap, the DOER has substituted a matrix specifying the percentage that may be removed based on soil type, ranging from zero to 40%. DOER has also revised the rules for efficiency calculations to incorporate variations in the heat content of biomass fuels, on-site usage of thermal energy, and the efficiency benefits of on-site generation compared to energy delivered via the grid. Other revisions include a standard methodology and template for calculating life cycle greenhouse gas emissions, and the explicit exclusion of construction and demolition waste as an eligible biomass fuel.

The regulations are expected to be referred to the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy for 30-day review. That Committee will offer comments, and the DOER will promulgate final regulations after an additional 30 days.

New England Governors Release Renewable Energy Blueprint

On Tuesday, the New England Governors' Conference released its Renewable Energy Blueprint. The Blueprint is based in part on a draft study conducted by ISO New England at the Governors' request, the New England 2030 Power System Study (pdf),which explored a range of different renewable energy development scenarios for New England.  The Governors' Blueprint is intended to identify strategies to "help bring new renewable resources to market within the current market structure." To that end, it identifies three main opportunities for New England states:

1) Synchronize states' power procurement and contracts -  Each New England state has authority to procure renewable energy, capacity, energy and RECs, usually in the form of long term contracts with generators selected through a competitive solicitation process.  The blueprint reviews these laws, and proposes synchronizing these approaches to obtain the most cost-effective renewable resources.  This makes some sense: the wind developments needed to meet the domestic wind generation totals envisioned in the ISO-NE study (from 2,000 to 12,000 MW) dramatically exceed the scale of any single state's existing procurement program.  Given the costs and uncertainty involved, offshore wind in particular (the ISO-NE study considers as much as 4,500 MW of offshore wind) will rely on state-mandated long term contracts in the foreseeable future. But state procurement authority is typically tied to in-state development of renewables:  coordinated procurement would not address states' interests in fostering their own in-state renewable energy industries.

2) Coordinate siting of interstate transmission facilities - The Blueprint offers an overview of state transmission siting laws, and explores the possibility of coordinating these processes to facilitate building large interstate transmission lines.  Right now, there aren't any existing plans to build any such lines in New England (at least onshore: there are a number of proposals to link Maine and Massachusetts underwater), but the ISO Report states the need for a lot of new interstate transmission lines to support New England's renewable energy goals.  For example, the 12,000 MW wind case contemplates "a new three-subloop, dual circuit overhead 500 kV or 765 kV backbone transmission system overlaying most of the interior of New England."  The cases involving expanding interconnections with Quebec and New Brunswick propose two lengthy +/- 450 kV HVDC lines, including a 400 mile line stretching from the Maine-New Brunswick border to Millbury, Massachusetts.

3) Strengthen federal support for state and regional renewable development - This last category is more a hodge podge of things that New England would like the federal government to do, including prioritizing and expediting federal permitting for off-shore wind projects in state and federal waters, and providing additional funding for development of renewable resources and transmission infrastructure.  Most important, though is a general plea that the federal government:

Respect regional system planning processes and consider the results of regional transmission system plans and renewable resource scenario analysis as guidance in connection with interconnection wide analyses and any federal financial support for renewable energy infrastructure development

This hints at what's really driving the blueprint: New England governors' concerns about federal intervention forcing New England ratepayers to contribute to massive transmission projects needed to bring the huge amounts of wind planned in the Midwest to New England markets.  (For an example of what this might look like, see the Joint Coordinated System Plan (pdf), released by MISO, PJM and other regional entities in February, or our previous post on the subject.) In addition to the costs, those projects, backed by federal subsidies, could crowd out renewable energy investment in New England.  The Blueprint, along with the ISO-NE study, represent New England's latest efforts to show that New England can meet its renewable energy goals with intra-regional solutions.

Betting Big On Better Batteries

Last week, General Electric announced (pdf) a $69 million investment by GE and others in Watertown, MA battery company A123.  Some of those funds will go toward the production of car batteries for electric and plug-in hybrid cars, some will also be used to produce utility-scale batteries that can help balance the addition of variable, renewable generation to the power grid. 

Good news for batteries is good news for renewable energy, since cost-effective storage will make it easier to manage the variability issues that arise with the introduction of large amounts of renewable resources to the grid.  Utilities are increasingly turning to energy storage to manage their use of wind and solar power, and storage is a key component of the much-ballyhooed smart grid.

A123 makes advanced lithium batteries; a technology that has drawn a fair amount of attention in the press of late.  But advanced lithium batteries are just one of many potential grid-scale storage technologies.  The United States currently has about 22,000 MW  of storage in the grid today (about ¼ of the global total), the vast majority of which is pumped storage hydro.  Even older technologies are seeing innovation, with updated grid-scale versions of lead acid batteries and new twists on pumped storage hydro, like Riverbank Power’s plans to build underground pumped storage by digging huge reservoirs 2,000 feet beneath Wiscassett, Maine.

Given its focus on renewable energy, it’s not surprising that the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA)  includes significant support for storage technologies, with grants for manufacturing advanced batteries (and training workers to make them) and tax credits and grants for potential customers (like renewable energy suppliers and purchasers of hybrid vehicles).  Most recently, the Department of Energy announced a $615 million draft Funding Opportunity Announcement for Smart Grid Demonstration Projects that include funding for “utility scale energy storage demonstrations.”

Upcoming New England REC auction: a preview for the nation?

Last week Evolution Markets and the  Massachusetts Technology Collaborative (MTC) announced plans to host its latest Renewable Energy Credit (REC) Auction on behalf of the Massachusets Renewable Energy Trust on April 22nd.  In addition to selling nearly 18,000 RECs to satisfy the Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut renewable portfolio standards, the auction provides some of the only publicly available sources of price information on the New England REC market.  

RECs and renewable portfolio standards remain the primary method by which New England states encourage renewable energy development, so the results of these auctions offer a snapshot of how well they’re doing.  Last October’s auction, for example, was the first in which Massachusetts “new” RECs dropped significantly below the compliance price (the price retail suppliers can pay in lieu of purchasing RECs).  In that auction, 2008 Mass RECs sold at prices between $30 and $32.  At the MTC/Evolution auction a year earlier (pdf), new 2008 Mass RECs sold at an average price of $52.

The drop in prices is not unexpected: last fall the Mass DOER reported that in 2007 the supply of available RECs was greater than retail suppliers’ demand (another pdf) for the first time.  That, along with the steady increase in the number of bidders suggests that the market for Massachusetts RECs has begun to mature.  With Congress set to begin debating an energy bill that includes a national RPS next week, many will be watching these auctions to see what the future may hold.