Research and Resources: wind leases, transmission lines
March 10, 2008
Don’t Sign Anything Yet. It’s fairly common knowledge that wind speculators are drawn to Kansas like flies are drawn to – to – honey (what did you think I was going to say?).
However. It might be wise to confer with a wide variety of sources before signing those leases, folks. My dad’s generation will probably tell you that when oil and gas first came to Kansas in a big way, a lot of people signed leases that they would not have otherwise signed after SWKROA got in gear. (And if you want to see what SWKROA has to say about wind leases, check out Guidelines for Landowners in Negotiating Wind Energy Leases.)
Don’t be the one to sign too much away. I was forwarded this letter to the editor (I think from the Kingman Leader-Courier – haven’t verified yet) that makes some interesting points:
Wind Farm Leases: Don’t Sign Anything Yet!
Some landowners in the area have recently been approached by wind energy developers interested in leasing their land for wind farm development. I would like to urge landowners to be very careful in evaluating these potential developers. Not all of these companies are actual developers. Some potential lessees that have been active in Kingman County are not true developers but are actually what is known as ‘lease hounds’, a term many are likely familiar with from the oil and gas leasing industry. These ‘lease hounds’ have no intention to develop a wind farm, but are looking to lock up land under lease and then sell the leases to a developer or power company. It is very common for these lease hounds to present an agreement with terms that are extremely one-sided, hoping to lock the land up for a very long time for a fairly small up-front payment and below-market lease payments.
Wind energy is an exciting opportunity for landowners in our area. However, we all must be careful to make sure we work with the right partner to turn this opportunity into reality, and I believe our best option is to work together as a coalition to make sure we find the best partner for tapping our wind resource. This is what is happening in many areas: landowners are forming cooperatives and negotiating lease terms collectively, sometimes even developing the wind farm themselves. I think a cooperative would be a excellent approach in our area.
If you have been contacted by a potential lessee or are otherwise interested in wind power development in our area, I strongly encourage you to attend the upcoming South Central Kansas Regional Wind Energy Event on March 26 from 9 am to 4pm at Kingman High School. Topics to be covered include: Leasing, Community Wind, Distribution Lines, and Coalition Building. This event is sponsored by the following organizations: Sumner County Economic Development Commission 620-326-8779; Kansas Rural Center 785-748-0959; Sunflower RC&D 620-896-7378; Kingman County Farm Bureau 620-532-6721; and the Kingman County Economic Development Council 620-532-3694.
Please wait until after you have attended this event before entering into any lease agreements. If the potential lessee gives you a deadline that is prior to this meeting then it is just further evidence that they are not a good wind energy partner. If you have already entered into an agreement and are concerned about its fairness, please also attend the event as there may be actions you can take to improve your situation with the lessee.
Signed Kenton Rosenhagen
Wind Development Figures. Also forwarded through the grapevine, Dorothy Barnett of Reno County Growth organization has come up with some PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) figures for Kansas counties for wind farm development. PILOT are annual payments that go to county/ schools:
Ford Co (Spearville Wind Energy Facility), 100 MW, $496,000 for 30 years annual payment to county/ schools
Gray Co Wind Farm, 112 MW, $330,000
Butler Co (Elk River Wind Farm), 150 MW, $150,000
Lincoln Co (Smoky Hills Wind Farm), 100/250 MW* $500,000
Ellis Co (proposed project), 100 MW, $600,000
Cloud Co (Meridian Way Wind Farm), 200 MW, unknown $
*100 MW in operation, Phase II to be built in ’08 will be additional 150 MW — not sure whether figure is for Phase I or both Phases.
PILOT amounts vary widely because they are negotiated on a county by county basis by local commissioners. This can occasionally cause problems, and get county commissioners accused of taking bribes, etc. One alternative is the way they do it in Minnesota – a production tax that is returned to local units of government. The more megawatts produced, the more tax paid. A property tax is another option.
Grant funds for wind. Also via Bill Roush of Heartland Solar Energy Industries Association, DOE has announced funding through the Windpowering America program. Kansas is one of the states that qualifies. More information:
State recipients will continue to focus on state level technical assistance and outreach initiatives to stimulate wind development by helping to remove market barriers, improve the knowledge of modern wind systems and benefits to the numerous stakeholder groups…. The Program expects to award up to twenty-two grants supporting targeted states that have adequate wind resources, yet are struggling with little installed capacity, inadequate wind development policies, and developing WWG’s and advocacy groups.
FYI, WWGs are Wind Working Groups. Kansas just launched one of those. Oklahoma’s WWG started a while ago and has done very well, especially as evidenced by their recent development in the panhandle, and SPP’s intense focus on improving transmission in OK.
I noted that this grant application process takes place through the grants.gov portal – a warning: GET STARTED ON THE PROCESS EARLY. There are a lot of hoops to jump through to submit a grant.
Updated Transmission Line Map for KS. Dan Nagengast, with the help of Kimberly Gencur-Svaty, has put together an updated map of transmission lines for KS.
This should help give a rough idea. If you download that and then print it, it SHOULD print with more detail. If it doesn’t let me know and I can send it to you in an email.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
News Updates: KS goes coal-crazy this weekend
March 10, 2008
Morning, everyone. Happy Monday! Sorry to do this to us, I’m sure we’ve all heard more than enough about coal, but I have to get through these articles first so we can get to the rest of the week.
Actually, I didn’t even try to list them all – to sum up, the Kansas press is doing a very strong job of following up on how their local legislators are voting on the Holcomb/ energy bill currently before the Governor. My google news alerts overfloweth. Yay for the Kansas media.
Kansas and coal. The legislator forum in Salina this weekend – “What’s Up with Coal in Kansas?” – drew a standing room only crowd (Salina Journal). That gives me chills. On the hot seat (ha — a little pun, there, global warming, hot seat, coal, get it?) were Representatives Josh Svaty, D-Ellsworth, who voted against the Holcomb bill, and Sen. Pete Brungardt, R-Salina, and Rep. Deena Horst, R-Salina, who voted for. Everyone explained their reasoning.
No global warming deniers in the Salina contingent, though, apparently – they all agreed on climate change.
All of the legislators said Kansans should expect to be affected by climate change.
“I learned very early, on the farm, there’s a cause and effect to everything,” Svaty said. “You can’t do anything in abundance and not think it’s going to change something.”
He said there’s no doubt that the extraction of fossil fuels and pumping of carbon into the atmosphere has had an effect.
“When we create chemical reactions, it changes the environment,” Svaty said. “I do believe that is causing the earth to warm. I think that we have to do something about that. … We have to begin to look for ways in which we can extract power without making such great and enormous chemical reactions that alter our environment.”
Editorial coverage. Randy Schofield of the Wichita Eagle put it pretty bluntly: “Plan for It: Carbon regs are coming.” The Eagle editorial board also extensively interviewed Westar’s Jim Ludwig and Bill Moore about the utility’s new deal with KDHE. Sunflower Electric and others have criticized this deal, more or less characterizing Westar as having been bullied into it.
However, Moore and Ludwig did not seem very cowed. Quotable:
“Our focus on regulatory uncertainty doesn’t focus on Rod Bremby and KDHE at all,” said Westar president and chief executive Bill Moore. He cited “about 50 different proposals” in Congress for addressing climate change with carbon regulation.
“We’re pretty convinced that in the next few years we’re going to have federal legislation reducing greenhouse gases,” said Jim Ludwig, Westar’s vice president for public affairs. “That’s really to us the foundational issue on regulatory uncertainty.”
In response to the growing scientific and political consensus on warming, Westar adopted a climate change policy (last August, before the Bremby decision) and recently announced an agreement with KDHE in which Westar will work to voluntarily reduce greenhouse gases from existing coal plants.
“We’re trying to be an early adopter,” Moore said.
Westar sees these steps as hardheaded, prudent business responses to a changing energy market.
Likewise, Bremby recently said that his Holcomb denial was based in part on the probability of rigorous new federal rules that could reduce carbon emissions 60 to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
Both Bremby and Westar agree on the need to lay the groundwork for these looming changes and not be taken by surprise later.
Speaking of carbon regulation… what might it look like? The Council for Foreign Relations gives an overview of the green policies of the three presidential candidates. Also, EnergyBiz interviews PewClimate’s state energy policy expert Eileen Claussen and others, to investigate the need for a federa Renewable Portfolio Standard that will tie all the state ones together a bit better.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
CEP live blogging from House Energy and Utilities Committee
March 10, 2008
Morning! More nuclear. This time from the House Energy Committee. Today we are listening to a briefing by Dr. Kenneth Shultis from K-State’s Department of Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering. Home-grown.
Members of the committee include: Representatives Johnson, Flora, Mast, Sloan, Long, Moxley, Faust-Goudeau, Swanson, Proehl, Keuther (Ranking Minority), Holmes (Chair), Olson (Vice Chair), Svaty, McLachlan, Fund, Knox, Hawk, Light, Neighbor, Morrison, and Myers.
Nuclear! This is all so interesting. I’m starting to seriously think about doing some interviews on the topic. Heck, obviously there is rising interest. CEP is supposed to take notice of that stuff.
We await the committee.
We still await the committee. Lots of idle chat. Most of it revolves around – WHEN will the Governor veto the energy bill? No shortage of theories. I have received a request to live blog that moment :) gotta say, I don’t see that happening. But it would be an interesting moment to record as CEP presses ever onward in our ceaseless quest for an open and accessible democratic process, in particular as regards climate and energy issues! (cue Eye of the Tiger music)
Getting a lot closer to a quorum.
Gavel. Meeting called to order. Holmes introduces Dr. Shultis.
Shultis testimony
Lots of electric demand, big challenge for society, and not a lot of baseload has been constructed lately. Insatiable demand of society will take a mix of solutions, including energy efficiency, wind, solar, and probably nuclear. All of these energies have advantages and disadvantages. Just going to present some facts.
In US – 104 nuclear power plants in 34 states that provide 20% of nation;s energy. For baseload power, your options are pretty much nuclear and fossil fuels. Wind and solar somewhat weather dependent. Nuclear a lot, lot safer than it used to be, less moving parts, and thus less expensive to build.
New nuke apps rising. lots of requests in pipeline. Many in planning stage. US nuclear power has 40 year record of safety. Nuke plants are very expensive to build, but cheap to operate, opposite of fossil fuel plants. Also has high capacity factor, 90%. Coal was 71%.
