From an article by Tom Held and Thomas Content in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
Board seeks female or minority contractor participation
Plans to build a 154-foot wind turbine to generate power for the Milwaukee Port Authority stalled Thursday over the lack of minority and female business participation in the lowest bid on the construction contract.
The Milwaukee Board of Harbor Commissioners tabled action on the contract with the low bidder, Kettle View Renewable Energy LLC of Random Lake. The firm's bid of $522,900 included roughly $2,000 of work by subcontractors, which would meet the emerging business enterprise designation.
That's not nearly enough, according to Ald. Robert Bauman, who led the commission's criticism of the contract.
The alderman said he would not support a contract for city work that did not address the severe unemployment and underemployment problem in his district and others.
"If that means losing $500,000, then we'll lose $500,000," Bauman said.
As proposed, a combination of $400,000 in federal renewable-energy stimulus money and grants of up to $100,000 each from the state Focus on Energy Program and We Energies would pay for the wind turbine.
With the federal funding, the contract does not include any specific requirements for emerging business participation. Bauman and other commissioners, though, argued that the low bid from Kettle View fell far short of the goals to generate jobs for city residents.
Experience preferred
Randy Faller, a principal in Kettle View, said his firm worked with experienced subcontractors familiar with the intricacies of the excavation and electrical work in constructing a wind turbine. He has been unable to find businesses that offer that experience and emerging enterprise certification.
The commission has limited options: reject all five bids and seek new proposals or approve the contract with Kettle View.
Bauman said he would scrap the turbine project before approving the current proposed deal.
"I don't see our citizens tolerating this," he said.
Mayor Tom Barrett "supports strong emerging business requirements in contracting," said Matt Howard, the city's environmental sustainability director, whose office proposed the wind turbine. "However, federal law prohibits the Board of Harbor Commissioners from imposing these requirements in this wind energy project."
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
RENEW asks PSC to stop We Energies' termination of renewable program
From the testimony of RENEW presented by Michael Vickerman, who draws attention to the fact that We Energies is trying to defund its $6 million/year renewable energy development program without any justification. In fact We Energies doesn't say anything about their actions. RENEW asks the PSC not to sanction this sleight of hand maneuver:
Q. What is the purpose of your testimony?
A. The purpose of my testimony is to discuss the May 2011 decision by We Energies to cancel a 10-year, $60 million commitment to support renewable energy development in its service territory. . . .
My testimony includes a recommendation to the Commission that it not allow We Energies to reallocate in 2012 the $6 million per year it had committed to spend on renewable energy development activities for other purposes. . . .
Q. What elements of We Energies’ Renewable Energy Development program do you consider to be particularly successful?
A. Several of We Energies’ customer incentives and tariffs were unique in the way they complemented Focus on Energy’s renewable energy program. For example, We Energies was the first utility to: (1) offer a solar energy-specific buyback rate; (2) increase the net energy billing capacity ceiling for small wind systems generators to 100 kW; and (3) support renewable energy-specific conferences and events such as Solar Decade held in Milwaukee. Perhaps the most innovative element in We Energies’ program, however, was its special incentive for nonprofit customers seeking to install renewable energy systems. Every three months, We Energies would solicit proposals from schools, religious institutions, local governments, nature centers and other nonprofit entities to co-fund new renewable energy systems on their premises. This We Energies incentive supplemented Focus on Energy grants and cash-back awards. It was designed to overcome the inability of these nonprofit entities to capture federal renewable energy tax credits to offset their own system acquisition costs. As a result of this unique incentive, there are more renewable energy systems serving nonprofit customers in We Energies territory than in any other utility territory. This initiative has an educational component to it as well; We Energies posts real-time production data from these systems on its web site.
Q. What is the purpose of your testimony?
A. The purpose of my testimony is to discuss the May 2011 decision by We Energies to cancel a 10-year, $60 million commitment to support renewable energy development in its service territory. . . .
My testimony includes a recommendation to the Commission that it not allow We Energies to reallocate in 2012 the $6 million per year it had committed to spend on renewable energy development activities for other purposes. . . .
Q. What elements of We Energies’ Renewable Energy Development program do you consider to be particularly successful?
A. Several of We Energies’ customer incentives and tariffs were unique in the way they complemented Focus on Energy’s renewable energy program. For example, We Energies was the first utility to: (1) offer a solar energy-specific buyback rate; (2) increase the net energy billing capacity ceiling for small wind systems generators to 100 kW; and (3) support renewable energy-specific conferences and events such as Solar Decade held in Milwaukee. Perhaps the most innovative element in We Energies’ program, however, was its special incentive for nonprofit customers seeking to install renewable energy systems. Every three months, We Energies would solicit proposals from schools, religious institutions, local governments, nature centers and other nonprofit entities to co-fund new renewable energy systems on their premises. This We Energies incentive supplemented Focus on Energy grants and cash-back awards. It was designed to overcome the inability of these nonprofit entities to capture federal renewable energy tax credits to offset their own system acquisition costs. As a result of this unique incentive, there are more renewable energy systems serving nonprofit customers in We Energies territory than in any other utility territory. This initiative has an educational component to it as well; We Energies posts real-time production data from these systems on its web site.
Friday, August 5, 2011
Wind project holds down utility's costs by
$12 million, coal pushes them higher
From an article by Tom Content in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
We Energies customers could see a small increase in electric bills in 2012 linked to the higher price of coal and other power plant fuels expected next year, the company said Wednesday.
The state's largest utility filed a plan with the state Public Service Commission that said costs linked to power plant fuels are projected to rise by about $50 million in 2012.
The utility wants to delay an increase in non-fuel rates until 2013. Whenever that increase hits customers' bills, it would result in a hike of about 6%, the utility projects.
Under the utility's plan, rates would rise in 2012 only because of power plant fuel prices, and the bottom line for customers would be an overall 2012 increase of less than 1%.
Residential customers would see a 0.7% increase, adding 77 cents a month for a typical residential customer now paying $104.90 a month for electricity, utility spokesman Brian Manthey said. Business customers would see increases of about 1% to 1.1%. . . .
The higher price of coal is projected to lead to $28 million in higher costs next year, including the price of the fuel itself and cost to deliver it by train to Wisconsin. Other increases include $10 million for power it buys from the Point Beach nuclear plant and about $8 million for natural gas.
Offsetting these increases somewhat is the state's newest and largest wind farm, set to open late this year. Generation from the Glacier Hills Wind Park would decrease 2012 fuel costs by more than $12 million, We Energies said.
We Energies customers could see a small increase in electric bills in 2012 linked to the higher price of coal and other power plant fuels expected next year, the company said Wednesday.
The state's largest utility filed a plan with the state Public Service Commission that said costs linked to power plant fuels are projected to rise by about $50 million in 2012.
The utility wants to delay an increase in non-fuel rates until 2013. Whenever that increase hits customers' bills, it would result in a hike of about 6%, the utility projects.
Under the utility's plan, rates would rise in 2012 only because of power plant fuel prices, and the bottom line for customers would be an overall 2012 increase of less than 1%.
Residential customers would see a 0.7% increase, adding 77 cents a month for a typical residential customer now paying $104.90 a month for electricity, utility spokesman Brian Manthey said. Business customers would see increases of about 1% to 1.1%. . . .
The higher price of coal is projected to lead to $28 million in higher costs next year, including the price of the fuel itself and cost to deliver it by train to Wisconsin. Other increases include $10 million for power it buys from the Point Beach nuclear plant and about $8 million for natural gas.
Offsetting these increases somewhat is the state's newest and largest wind farm, set to open late this year. Generation from the Glacier Hills Wind Park would decrease 2012 fuel costs by more than $12 million, We Energies said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)