ILNews

A bottleneck is bedeviling Indiana's mighty wind turbines

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Gusts blowing across Interstate 65 north of Lafayette one recent day were powerful enough to shake cars but impotent to budge the blades of the giant wind turbines dotting the sparse landscape.

On an ideal day for generating electricity, the colossal pinwheels were eerily still, and for the most unlikely of reasons. They’d been turned off.

Why? Neither the wind farm operators nor the utilities contracted to buy their electricity had built enough power lines to carry the surge to Midwestern homes and businesses.

What little electricity the wind farms produce wends its way out of the thinly populated area through a modest network of lines designed before the operations popped up in 2008.

The missed revenue is a drop in the bucket for power companies, which balance overwhelmingly coal-fired energy portfolios worth tens of billions of dollars a year.

And Midwest Independent System Operator, the Carmel-based not-for-profit that directs electricity throughout much of the upper Midwest and Mississippi Delta, has streamlined its handling of the wind-generated current.

But the wind farms continue to shut down for hours at a time, causing the state to miss out on a harvest of green energy.

Had the farms operated at average capacity in the past five years, they would have churned out enough electricity to power an additional 100,000 homes, equivalent to all the households in Hamilton County, Indianapolis Business Journal found in an analysis of federal data.

“What it comes down to is, it’s lost revenue; it’s electricity that could be generated and it isn’t,” said Paul Preckel, faculty director of the State Utility Forecasting Group at Purdue University.

Indiana was late to the boom in wind energy, but once construction started in 2008, four wind farms boasting 798 towers and capacity of 1,338 megawatts sprouted within months in Benton and White counties.

focus-wind-map.gifThe boom was fueled by a confluence of a national push for clean energy with no fuel costs and the high wind speeds in some open areas of northern Indiana.

Utilities, coping with rising coal and natural gas prices in the 2000s, turned to wind as a hedge against volatile fuel pricing and looming regulations on carbon emissions.

Winds in most of Indiana don’t hold a candle to the howling speeds in the high plains between North Dakota and Texas, where many turbines are located, but a spot northwest of Lafayette spanning Benton, White, Newton and Jasper counties is almost as breezy, according to the Energy Information Agency. Winds in the pocket average 8 mph — among the fastest east of the Mississippi River, and nearly twice as fast as some areas of southern Indiana.

Canadian winds are pushed into Benton and White counties by the Great Lakes, said Ken Scheeringa, associate state climatologist for the Indiana State Climate Office at Purdue University. The counties also have few buildings to slow the winds.

Benton County landed most of the investment. Oakland, Calif.-based Orion Energy Group LLC in 2008 built Benton County Wind Farm, boasting 87 turbines and 131 megawatts of capacity.

Two other developers followed Orion into Benton County, and yet another developer settled in neighboring White County.

Wind farms also have emerged in Tipton and Madison counties north of Indianapolis.

In all, the state’s wind energy capacity has mushroomed tenfold since 2008.

Inefficient operation

Energy farms are notoriously inefficient, with turbines typically producing about 35 percent of their capacity due to varying wind speeds and unperfected technology.

But Indiana’s farms are even more inefficient. Between January and November last year, they operated at only about 25 percent of their potential, according to the latest figures available from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Peak efficiency for a full year — 28 percent — was reached in 2011.

Considering that electricity sells in wholesale markets at $35 to $40 per megawatt hour, utilities and wind farm operators have missed out on tens of millions of dollars in revenue.

The amount of wind energy Indiana generates is well below the performance throughout all of MISO’s grid, noted Bob Fagan, principal associate at consultant Synapse Energy Economics Inc. in Cambridge, Mass.

Grid congestion

The rapid advent of Indiana’s wind farms and the bungling of the transmission lines quickly created congestion.

Most of the time, the turbines generated electricity faster than the lines could accept it. But in periods of low usage, such as spring and fall, the turbines churned out more power than there was demand.

In those periods, utilities were obligated to pay the wind farms regardless of the demand, so the utilities subsidized the farms rather than eat the greater expense of shutting down and restarting their coal- and gas-fired plants.

Critics charge the congestion was worsened by a federal tax credit started in 1992 to stimulate renewable power by offsetting some development costs. Wind-energy producers could collect a hefty $23 for every megawatt hour they produced.

The critics slam the incentive for encouraging wind-energy producers to put out more electricity than the grid can handle just so the companies could claim the tax credits.

Indiana took in $69.6 million in credits in 2012 while paying out $57.9 million in taxes to support the incentive, according to a December report by the Institute for Energy Research, a Washington, D.C., think tank with ties to the oil industry.

“One of the biggest problems with the [Production Tax Credit] is that it provides incentives for wind producers to sell electricity to the grid at ‘negative prices.’ In other words, the PTC subsidy is so excessive that wind producers frequently pay the grid to take their electricity,” said a September statement by the group.

The think tank and the American Wind Energy Association industry group argue over the accuracy of each other’s claims.

The American Wind Energy Association, a public rival to the fossil fuel-centric Institute for Energy Research, says the credit “keeps electricity rates low and encourages development of proven renewable energy projects.”

Regardless of their stand, Congress let the incentives expire at the end of 2013. The credits, however, are good for 10 years, so any wind development before the end of last year will continue to receive the breaks.

Burdensome process

Before 2009, wind amounted to such a small resource that MISO didn’t even use computers to regulate generation, as it does to manage coal- and gas-fired plants.

When MISO noticed congestion in the grid, it would put in a telephone call to the utilities, which in turn called the farm operators to dial back operations. The process took hours; meanwhile, the wind farms produced electricity but had nowhere to send it, at least not without sending it at a high cost.

“[Turbines] just sat there, and when the wind blew, they generated power, and it just goes into the lines,” said Dennis Dininger, director of fuel supply for Indianapolis Power & Light Co. “[MISO] could see what the wind parks were doing, but they had no control over it.”

Problems stemming from grid congestion around the wind farms worked their way into rate cases handled by state regulators.

Duke Energy, in a routine rate-adjustment filing in October, said it paid to distribute the electricity it bought from Benton County Wind Farm, according to Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission documents. Duke’s contract with the farm dictates that it buy all electricity the farm produces.

The utility did not specify its costs for the wind farm. But the operation was a factor — albeit a small one — in a request to increase residential rates by an average of $1.53 for November and December.

Duke officials noted in their filing that MISO changed its system in early 2013 to better manage wind energy, resulting in significantly fewer curtailments.

Instead of dumping the energy onto the grid with little control, MISO incorporated wind into the same computer system used for traditional fuels. MISO can now constantly monitor wind production and adjust as need dictates every five minutes.

Slowdowns still happen frequently. But they are much more cost-effective for the parties compared to the “manual curtailments” that constantly hurt wind farms.

The system has become “more efficient, from a market perspective, and an operations perspective,” MISO officials wrote in an email to IBJ.

However, MISO’s new system for wind energy is at the core of a federal lawsuit Benton County Wind Farm filed against Duke in December.

The litigation sheds light on how dire the situation became in the area. The farm’s owners accused Duke of breaching its purchase contract, “proving disastrous” to the operation.

Once MISO changed its system in early 2013, Duke had to submit bids to sell the energy it bought from the farm — rather than automatically placing the electricity onto the grid, as it previously did. If bids are too high, MISO’s computer system curtails wind farms’ production.

Documents redact a lot of the details behind what the wind farm accuses Duke of doing. But the suit says the utility “curtail[ed] electrical production by refusing to offer the Wind Farm’s power to MISO at competitive prices” and would not compensate the farm for the missed revenue.

Better, but not fixed

MISO admits that even in the best circumstances, its revamped process for handling wind energy “does nothing to eliminate the underlying drivers for congestion.” The change, MISO said, merely gives its operators “tools to more effectively and efficiently manage the congestion when it occurs.”

It will take an estimated $5.2 billion in investments throughout MISO’s network, including $800 million in Indiana, over several years to accommodate wind energy well enough to meet state-by-state mandates for renewable energy.

MISO in a January 2012 report outlined 17 transmission projects it says will alleviate congestion and help states meet renewable energy mandates, among other benefits.

A separate report in May 2012 by Synapse, the Massachusetts consultant, determined investments in Midwest’s electrical infrastructure to bring on more wind energy would ultimately lower utility rates for customers, especially as the upfront costs for wind decrease while fuel costs for coal and gas increase.

“The economics keep getting better” for wind, said Synapse’s Fagan.

But infrastructure upgrades need to happen to tap the renewable resource’s full potential.

“Until they get the transmission assets in place,” Fagan said, “they’ll continue to need to curtail wind.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13) Under the current system many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the life’s of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety. The full report is available online at. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231 National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America. The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual reoffending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual reoffense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx? ID=247350 The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483 Conclusion. The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry via the Internet. The BJS data that tracked individual sex offenders after their release in 1994 did not show that registration had a significantly negative effect on recidivism. And the D.C. crime data do not show that knowing the location of sex offenders by census block can help protect the locations of sexual abuse. This pattern of noneffectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates. The full report is available online at. http://www.jstor.org/stable/full/10.1086/658483 These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. People, including the media and other organizations should not rely on and reiterate the statements and opinions of the legislators or other people as to the need for these laws because of the high recidivism rates and the high risk offenders pose to the public which simply is not true and is pure hyperbole and fiction. They should rely on facts and data collected and submitted in reports from the leading authorities and credible experts in the fields such as the following. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 0.8% (page 30) The full report is available online at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/2014_Outcome_Evaluation_Report_7-6-2015.pdf California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) (page 38) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 1.8% The full report is available online at. http://www.google.com/url?sa= t&source=web&cd=1&ved= 0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F% 2Fwww.cdcr.ca.gov%2FAdult_ Research_Branch%2FResearch_ documents%2FOutcome_ evaluation_Report_2013.pdf&ei= C9dSVePNF8HfoATX-IBo&usg=AFQjCNE9I6ueHz-o2mZUnuxLPTyiRdjDsQ Bureau of Justice Statistics 5 PERCENT OF SEX OFFENDERS REARRESTED FOR ANOTHER SEX CRIME WITHIN 3 YEARS OF PRISON RELEASE WASHINGTON, D.C. Within 3 years following their 1994 state prison release, 5.3 percent of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. The full report is available online at. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp94pr.cfm Document title; A Model of Static and Dynamic Sex Offender Risk Assessment Author: Robert J. McGrath, Michael P. Lasher, Georgia F. Cumming Document No.: 236217 Date Received: October 2011 Award Number: 2008-DD-BX-0013 Findings: Study of 759 adult male offenders under community supervision Re-arrest rate: 4.6% after 3-year follow-up The sexual re-offense rates for the 746 released in 2005 are much lower than what many in the public have been led to expect or believe. These low re-offense rates appear to contradict a conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf Document Title: SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: RECIDIVISM RATES BY: Washington State Institute For Public Policy. A study of 4,091 sex offenders either released from prison or community supervision form 1994 to 1998 and examined for 5 years Findings: Sex Crime Recidivism Rate: 2.7% Link to Report: http://www.oncefallen.com/files/Washington_SO_Recid_2005.pdf Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009. The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05% Link to Report: http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/RecidivismRelease.pdf Once again, These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and devastating. The question is not whether the state has an interest in preventing such harm, but whether current laws are effective in doing so. Megan’s law is a failure and is destroying families and their children’s lives and is costing tax payers millions upon millions of dollars. The following is just one example of the estimated cost just to implement SORNA which many states refused to do. From Justice Policy Institute. Estimated cost to implement SORNA Here are some of the estimates made in 2009 expressed in 2014 current dollars: California, $66M; Florida, $34M; Illinois, $24M; New York, $35M; Pennsylvania, $22M; Texas, $44M. In 2014 dollars, Virginia’s estimate for implementation was $14M, and the annual operating cost after that would be $10M. For the US, the total is $547M. That’s over half a billion dollars – every year – for something that doesn’t work. http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf. Attempting to use under-reporting to justify the existence of the registry is another myth, or a lie. This is another form of misinformation perpetrated by those who either have a fiduciary interest in continuing the unconstitutional treatment of a disfavored group or are seeking to justify their need for punishment for people who have already paid for their crime by loss of their freedom through incarceration and are now attempting to reenter society as honest citizens. When this information is placed into the public’s attention by naive media then you have to wonder if the media also falls into one of these two groups that are not truly interested in reporting the truth. Both of these groups of people that have that type of mentality can be classified as vigilantes, bullies, or sociopaths, and are responsible for the destruction of our constitutional values and the erosion of personal freedoms in this country. I think the media or other organizations need to do a in depth investigation into the false assumptions and false data that has been used to further these laws and to research all the collateral damages being caused by these laws and the unconstitutional injustices that are occurring across the country. They should include these injustices in their report so the public can be better informed on what is truly happening in this country on this subject. Thank you for your time.

  2. Freedom as granted in the Constitution cannot be summarily disallowed without Due Process. Unable to to to the gym, church, bowling alley? What is this 1984 level nonsense? Congrats to Brian for having the courage to say that this was enough! and Congrats to the ACLU on the win!

  3. America's hyper-phobia about convicted sex offenders must end! Politicians must stop pandering to knee-jerk public hysteria. And the public needs to learn the facts. Research by the California Sex Offender Management Board as shown a recidivism rate for convicted sex offenders of less than 1%. Less than 1%! Furthermore, research shows that by year 17 after their conviction, a convicted sex offender is no more likely to commit a new sex offense than any other member of the public. Put away your torches and pitchforks. Get the facts. Stop hysteria.

  4. He was convicted 23 years ago. How old was he then? He probably was a juvenile. People do stupid things, especially before their brain is fully developed. Why are we continuing to punish him in 2016? If he hasn't re-offended by now, it's very, very unlikely he ever will. He paid for his mistake sufficiently. Let him live his life in peace.

  5. This year, Notre Dame actually enrolled an equal amount of male and female students.

ADVERTISEMENT