Plenary Meeting #14

Overview of NWCC Activities
Heather Rhoads, NWCC Outreach Coordinator

• NWCC's key accomplishments of 1997: While the NWCC has held fewer full in-person meetings this year, the Committee has increased its activity levels with Workgroup and steering committee meetings and conference calls. Highlights of the year include initiating consensus-based outreach efforts in selected regions; launching the website and toll-free number; releasing the Distributed Research Project and Green Marketing RFPs; and completing the Siting Handbook.
• Status on NWCC's numerous projects: NWCC Publications released to date include Proceedings for Avian-Wind Power Planning Meetings I & II and Issue Briefs and Issue Papers series – Transmission and Integration briefs are newly-released; bound sets of Briefs and Papers 1-11 are now available (contact Heather for copies). All Issue Briefs & Papers are posted on the web at www.nationalwind.org/pubs/pubs.htm; Avian proceedings will also be uploaded onto the web soon as printed copies are running low.
  
  Drafts in review (at time of meeting) include:

• Transmission Papers Phase I & II
• Permitting Handbook
• Avian Metrics Document
• State Policy Options Report
• Commercialization Scenarios
• NWCC brochure

Other current and upcoming activities include: distributed wind research; outreach initiatives; regulatory and legislative "magic moments" and briefings; Avian-Wind National Research Meeting III and public workshops; and green power marketing research.

• Plans for outreach efforts and internet developments: A tiered approach for outreach in key wind states/regions has been developed – focusing on New England, the Upper Midwest and Texas; watching for opportunities in Colorado, Kansas, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Montana, New Mexico, and Arkansas; and monitoring developments in Nevada, Washington, Oregon, Wisconsin, Hawaii, and elsewhere. These groupings are somewhat fluid as plans for wind projects or utility restructuring develop around the country. Meetings with local stakeholders have been held to confirm interest in partnering on activities and to develop tailored strategies to support market development; the next phase will be implementation to address local policy issues and to provide expertise during legislative proceedings, regulatory dockets, and other opportunities.

See Appendix B for updated NWCC Activities overheads, including additional highlights of 1997 activities; information about on-line services; a calendar of upcoming wind-related events; and ideas for potential outreach efforts for 1998.

• Distributed Wind Research Project
  Ed DeMeo, Electric Power Research Institute

In Europe, high electric rates, financing mechanisms, service infrastructure, policy incentives, etc. have led to "distributed" wind power rather than the California-type centralized wind farms. The objective for NWCC’s distributed project is to explore cluster wind turbine deployment and its potential applications in the U.S., to determine if distributed wind development makes sense here. Technical, economic, and social benefits, impact and drivers will be assessed; the European and U.S. situations will be compared; and attractive opportunities for U.S. distributed wind projects will be identified in order to develop information useful for policy development.

The draft Distributed Project scope of work (included with advance meeting packets) issued with the RFP in August via e-mail networks was developed and reviewed closely by an 11-member Workgroup. Five proposals were received; the review committee recommended the team of Princeton Economic Research, Inc. (PERI), Tom Wind, AWS and PTI, which will augment NWCC funds with a National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) distributed project. A kick-off meeting for the consultant team, Workgroup members, and project managers (Brian Parsons at NREL and Ed DeMeo at EPRI) will be held January 28, 1998. A mid-project review will be held in the summer; and the final product will be presented to the full NWCC at its fall meeting. Remaining issues to be determined include limiting the project scope to prioritize and focus on the most important questions; efficiently obtaining European input; the composition of the project review team; and the publication format.

Discussion: The need for front-end involvement of sector representatives, utilities with distributed projects (in Iowa, Colorado and Michigan), and potential end users was identified in order to get comprehensive review and buy-in; the expanded review team should be kept in-the-loop with e-mail communication. One member suggested that an additional value of distributed development may be its local nature, for "green" power marketing; however another warned against making apples-and-oranges comparisons (the driving factor for Traverse City’s project was its green component).

The group discussed whether the NWCC or the consultants would be considered the "author" of the report. Review and authorship of products was identified as a long-term question for the NWCC. The group considered and rejected the workability and value of releasing reports without consensus; all agreed that the NWCC would be open to criticism if the process isn’t handled well. One member suggested that the consultants be very careful with their research methods in order to maintain a balanced approach; they should review NWCC’s other publications released and be familiar with the consensus process. The need for skeptical reviewers was identified to ensure the credibility of the end product. A key purpose of the Distributed kick-off meeting will be to address any remaining concerns and finalize the project’s scope of work.

NWCC’s definition of consensus ("live with") and process ground rules were reviewed. One member noted that the project’s design is very important as current divisions within the utility industry may lead to an intense debate on this topic. The facilitator noted that the strength of the NWCC is serving as a catalyst for debate and elevating information and issues for decision-makers; perhaps the publication paradigm (draft to final, move on to new topics) should be revisited for an on-going collaborative. Another member suggested that products to come out of the Distributed project could be as simple as two spreadsheets – a traditional utility analysis of distributed development, and a green power perspective to compare the value of the electricity.

• State Policy Options Report
  Heather Rhoads and Abby Arnold, RESOLVE

Throughout 1997 the NWCC’s State Policy Options Report, prepared by Nancy Rader and Ryan Wiser, has undergone review, discussion, and editing. The report’s size and dense nature has made finalization difficult. One member noted that the Interstate Renewable Energy Council’s easy-to-use internet resource spelling out state tax incentives, the National Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy (DSIRE) could serve as a good model for making NWCC’s report available electronically. Others agreed that while some constituencies may have use for the full report in some form, boiling it down into a more digestible summary would be more valuable for legislators and regulators.

Update: During its December 1997 conference call, the NWCC Steering Committee decided to move forward with preparing a more substantive executive summary, posting the longer text on the web, and distributing printed copies only by request. An editor under subcontract with RESOLVE is developing a new summary, which will be circulated to all NWCC members prior to the January 27, 1998, Plenary Meeting for consensus review and public release.

• Transmission Project Phase I & II
  Heather Rhoads, NWCC Outreach Coordinator

The final review draft of Phase I was mailed out with advance meeting packets; a few minor edits were suggested but no major objections to releasing the paper were voiced. One member pointed out a "call to action" on page 19 (line 33) for the NWCC in making proposals and filing comments with FERC on transmission rule-making, and encouraged this to be included as a "next step" in Phase II.

The initial draft of Phase II was mailed to those on the Transmission review committee with advance meeting packets. One member noted that FERC has been approving regional transmission groups, so the paper’s audience (and reviewers) should be expanded. Another member noted that Roger Hamilton of the Oregon PUC may be able to identify additional reviewers. The NWCC has an opportunity to inform the emerging regulatory structure by sharing the consultants’ work with key decision-makers. An ongoing NWCC Workgroup was recommended to elevate NWCC’s dialogue on these issues – one possible opportunity suggested is at Western Interstate Energy Board’s joint meeting with 13 western states and 3 Canadian provinces April 15-17 in Victoria.

Potential Transmission Workgroup Members include:

• R.T. "Hap" Boyd, Enron
• Matthew Brown, NCSL
• Ed DeMeo, Electric Power Research Institute
• David Engberg, PacifiCorp
• Chris Flavin, Worldwatch Institute
• Peter Goldman, US Department of Energy
• Roger Hamilton, Oregon PUC
• Ron Lehr, NARUC
• Chuck Linderman, Edison Electric Institute
• Mark P. McGree, Northern States Power
• Thomas Mol, Northern States Power Company
• John Nunley, Wyoming Energy & Conservation Office
• Robert Putnam, Utility Wind Interest Group
• Randy Swisher, American Wind Energy Association
• Mike Tennis, ReGen Technologies/All Energy
• Carl Weinberg, American Wind Energy Association

See Appendix D for contact information for potential Transmission Workgroup members and project consultants.

Final draft Wind Facility Permitting Handbook: The Authors’ Group met over lunch and reviewed final comments received as well as the sample covers and graphic design. One member noted that Ward Marshall of CSW indicated he would be providing comments; the Committee approved the document pending follow-up on CSW’s concerns. Update: This led to the suggestion for additional clarification language in the introduction stating that the recommendations contained in the Handbook are not all applicable to every situation.

Dissemination/outreach efforts: Workgroup members recommended printing 2,000 copies for wide dissemination and uploading the full document on the web with additional "appendices" and hot links to related resources. One member suggested sending out a press release or publication announcement to trade magazine and association newsletters. RESOLVE will work with NREL to determine the best shipping/distribution methods.

1. Allow another organization to publish paper
2. Release paper under author’s name, as sponsored by NWCC or with "not endorsed by" disclaimer
3. Publish commercialization piece as-is (lose NSP as NWCC member)
4. Don’t publish commercialization paper (leave in draft & distribute only upon request)
5. Expand vision of paper and develop new chapters to examine:

• incremental cost comparisons of wind and other resources
• environmental considerations
• benchmark on costs / impacts on rates (incorporate current piece into longer paper)
• the price of wind vs. alternatives
• attributes of wind vs. attributes of other resources

Ron Lehr described the new proposed approach to NWCC’s green marketing project – exploring substantive issues in a timely manner by keeping the project design simple and asking direct questions. Karl Rábago explained that Phase I of the project will inform the construction of Phase II; the scope of work will likely be modified and refined once after the initial research is completed.

Additional suggestions for questions to be explored included:

• What is the right channel to market wind?

• vehicle to sell?
• how to penetrate the market?
• how to buy?

• Who is the market – residential? – industry? – rural states? (KS, GA, KY)
• Who is the public?
• How to sell in states where little / no action?
• Who is the industry signing contracts with?
• What makes wind succeed (sell) vis-a-vis other renewables?
• What is the profile of other existing green customers? (recycled products, biodegradable soap)

• of those who say will buy green power?
• of actual wind customers?

• Should green market be segmented?
• How can second tier customers be reached?

Update: The RFP and revised draft scope of work outline was released December 17; proposals were due January 7. The review committee will rank the submissions and recommend a consultant at the January 27 Plenary Meeting.

NWCC Business
Abby Arnold and Heather Rhoads, RESOLVE

• New logo and brochure images: Members felt the turbine blades on the sample NWCC logo designed by NREL should show motion, the clouds should be wispy to represent wind, and the mountains should be replaced by rolling plains. Feedback on brochure graphics included:

• NSP would like photo of Lake Benton featured
• Member organizations logos should be used, but not grouped
• Eagle photo may be too provoking
• Cost graph needs updated figures
• US wind resource map should have better resolution
• Satellite view of Earth should show North America
• Lattice towers should be less prominent

• Supports U.S. wind deployment
• Knowledge of subject
• Speaker of program
• Relevance to NWCC’s mission and current activities
• Exposure for NWCC
• Ability to pay other ways

Sector Reports: Information-Sharing Resource Expertise

• Utilities
  Ed DeMeo, EPRI

As a new "sector" of the NWCC, green power marketers bring what is likely to be a new perspective to the group with special interest in:

• public education as it relates to wind and renewables in restructured electricity markets;
• state and federal policymaking as it relates to the rules, regulations, and entry requirements to newly opened markets;
• financing and risk management; and
• DOE, EPRI, and state level incentive strategies (i.e., use of system benefits funds, or implementation of state-level RPS) for renewable technologies.

Next Steps for NWCC Members & Consultants
Abby Arnold and Heather Rhoads, RESOLVE