Business Meeting #16

In preparation for next week's NWCC meeting in Sioux Falls, we are circulating the following notes from a recent conference call discussing a Midwest outreach initiative to coordinate wind resource assessment programs.

Please let John or I know if you disagree with any "consensus," "recommendation" or "action" items listed below - or post your comments directly to the new listserver (AWEA-plains-WRAP@igc.org). We look forward to advancing this dialogue!

AMERICAN WIND ENERGY ASSOCIATION
GREAT PLAINS REGIONAL OFFICE

Date: 1998 June 10
To:      Regional WRAP Coordinators & Interested Individuals
From: John Dunlop, Regional Representative
           Ph: 612/377-3270; FAX: 612/374-2181 <jrdunlop@mcimail.com>

Re:      6/4/98 Conference call 1998 Revised DRAFT Notes
            - For Review & Comment

CALL PARTICIPANTS

Larry Bean Iowa Dept. of Natural Resources, NWCC member
David Blittersdorf NRG Systems
Jeff Carlson Wisconsin Energy Bureau
John Dunlop AWEA Regional Rep.
Tom Factor Iowa Wind Energy Institute
Rick Halet Northern States Power
Ron Lehr Attorney, NWCC member
Scott McDonald AWS Scientific
Mark McGree Northern States Power
Brian Parsons National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Bob Putnam Utility Wind Interest Group, NWCC member
Ganesh Rajagopalan Iowa State University
Heather Rhoads NWCC Outreach Coordinator
David Stooksbury High Plains Climate Center
Steve Wegman South Dakota Public Utilities Commission Staff

AGENDA

1. Introductions - Heather Rhoads
2. Historical perspective - John Dunlop
3. Review draft discussion memo Heather - John
4. Identify project objectives - John
5. Action Items - What, How & Who - Heather Rhoads

1. INTRODUCTIONS: Including the 15 people on the conference call, over 80 people have expressed interest in coordinating wind resource assessment programs (WRAP) in the Northern Plains region. All interested parties will continue to be included in communication regarding coordination of the programs.

The participants discussed which states should be invited to participate in the initial effort to coordinate their WRAP programs. Pervious efforts were directed at those Plains states with comparable terrain and some level of WRAP activity -- from Wisconsin, Iowa and Kansas north to the Canadian border. Suggestions were made to include other Plains states. In particular, new programs in Missouri and Colorado justified their inclusion in the regional effort.

RECOMMENDATION: Initial efforts at regional WRAP coordination will strive to include nine states: MO, KS, CO, NE, IA, WI, MN, SD, ND. After the procedures are established, other states will be invited to join in an extended coordination effort.

2. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE: Spurred in large part by the Union of Concerned Scientists' report, Powering the Midwest, regional stakeholders attended meetings at the previous three Windpower (AWEA) conferences to explore options for coordinating WRAP programs in the Plains states:

Windpower 96 15 people
Windpower 97 16 people
Windpower 98 25 people

The current effort to pursue regional WRAP coordination is the direct result of the solid interest expressed at those meetings and the NWCC's goal to catalyze regional outreach initiatives.

3. DRAFT DISCUSSION MEMO: As discussed at Windpower 98, John Dunlop summarized the status of regional WRAP programs, the value of sharing WRAP data, and progressive options for coordinating regional data collection, storage and analysis. [Recipients of these notes who have not received a copy of the draft discussion memo may receive one by contacting John Dunlop at JRDunlop@MCImail.com.]

A. STATUS

DATA SHARING: In addition to the statements drafted by John, participants felt that some current owners of publicly available data have been reluctant to transfer the data to others, not out of a resistance to share the data but simply due to the resources required. A better understanding of what efforts are underway, who are the key contacts, and improved accessibility to "public" data could begin addressing this difficulty.

B. VALUE OF SHARING DATA

BENEFIT TO WRAP PROGRAMS: Data owners may be more inclined to spend the resources to share data if the benefit is reciprocal.

DATA: Numerous entities are collecting quality wind resource data, including states, regional development commissions, utilities and private wind energy businesses. However, much of this data is proprietary and not available to the general public.

RECOMMENDATION: Only publicly available data will be considered for inclusion in initial cooperative regional WRAP efforts, though information about non-public WRAP programs may be collected and shared.

U-WRAP: Considerable discussion surrounded the availability of data being collected under the Utility Wind Resource Assessment Program (U-WRAP) under sponsorship of the Utility Wind Interest Group (UWIG). Currently, only 10 meter data is available now. Though some individual program participants have opted to release their data earlier, program guidelines require that all of the data (10, 20, 30, and 40-meter data) be made public three years after the completion of the monitoring program. Under these guidelines, the first additional data will become publicly available in the year 2000, with data from programs which started later becoming available after that time.

RECOMMENDATION: While much quality data is being collected under the U-WRAP program, only hub-height data that is already publicly available will be included in the initial WRAP coordination efforts. Since all U-WRAP data will become available eventually, the quality of the regional data set will steadily increase over time.

10 METER DATA: UWIG will soon issue an announcement for an expanded N-WRAP (National Wind Resource Assessment Program, as non-utility partners will be eligible for co-funding). Changes in the program design may include the release of additional information, such as identifying 10-meter sites by county. Some participants pointed out that such data could be misleading, and hub height data at specific locations is required to accurately determine the wind resource for power production at a given locality.

ANALYSIS: One of the potential outcomes of coordinating WRAP programs is standardizing software and analytical routines. Uniform data analyzed differently between WRAP programs will still yield varying results. Tom Factor recommended that a consistent computer method be made available to all WRAP managers.

QUALITY CONTROL: The U-WRAP program has developed a protocol for controlling the quality of collected data. Though other cooperative programs need not necessarily adopt the same protocol, it would be useful for all participants to be aware of the protocol.

ACTION: UWIG/AWS will make the U-WRAP handbook protocol available to all WRAP program managers and interested parties via email and on UWIG's web site.

VALIDATION: While some programs use common data validation procedures, other monitoring programs have developed their own procedures. Data validation is an issue that is much broader than cooperation between Northern Plains WRAP monitoring programs. David Blittersdorf suggested that the AWEA Siting Committee may be a more appropriate forum to discuss the technical merits of various validation schemes.

Jeff Carlson proposed that a classification scheme be established which identifies the nature of the data, but which wouldn't mandate a standard. The user of the data would then be able to make a judgement on the quality of the data based on the validation qualification rating. Tom Factor suggested that data could be made available in a "raw" form as well as a standardized quality control set of data.

WIND MAPS: David Blittersdorf pointed out that while regional data is important for policy decisions, a coordinated data set can also lead to more valid and extensive wind resource maps. Though utility-scale wind power plants will require more detailed wind resource assessment at proposed sites, individuals, homeowners, farmers and small businesses may base their performance expectations for a small wind turbine solely on good quality wind resource maps. A quality regional database of wind regimes will be essential to creating valid regional wind resource maps.

ACTION: As a first step, all of UCS's state wind maps can be posted on the web.

C. OPTIONAL REGIONAL COORDINATION PROGRAMS:

PURPOSE OF COMMON DATA: Wind data is useful for everything from establishing the potential energy impact from wind and informing wind energy policy positions to estimating the energy production capacity of an area and siting turbines for a wind power plant. The proposed effort will be limited to publicly available data, predominantly supported by public funds.

CONSENSUS? The primary purpose of a regional WRAP coordination effort is to inform public policy and economic development decisions.

CURRENT PROGRAMS: AWEA collected information about regional WRAP programs at Windpower '96 (included with this message), and NREL has gathered information on monitoring programs throughout the U.S. (attached to subsequent message).

ACTION: Participants should review both program information documents for accuracy and send any updates or additions to John Dunlop. Compiled info will be posted on the web, perhaps eventually as a DSIRE-type searchable database.

DATA: While wind energy data has been collected in the region since the early 1980's, the current technology and procedures of data acquisition are much better than those used in early WRAP programs.

RECOMMENDATIONS:
  1) Use only data collected after 1986.
  2) Site must have two years of data.
  3) Site must have data from 25 meters or higher.

REGIONAL WRAP: The participants discussed the level of coordination which should be attempted at this point in time. While analyses of the data, siting information and wind power forecasting will be beneficial in the future, they will be based on a valid data set.

CONSENSUS? The current goal of the Northern Plains Regional WRAP Coordination Initiative is to establish a regional repository of WRAP data, including a record of quality control measures performed on the data.

FUNDING: No single organization -- state or national -- has been given the charge to coordinate this regional WRAP initiative. However, there is a broad consensus that such efforts are potentially very beneficial. Any regional WRAP coordination will require institutional backing and funding, and the challenge will be to develop convincing justifications for this initiative. In addition to NREL/DOE, participants identified potential funding sources: Energy Foundation ("more excited about wind"), Turner Foundation (includes states in which Ted Turner has property), Oak Ridge National Labs State Partnership Program . Tom Factor volunteered to follow-up on the Oak Ridge program [subsequent to the conference call, this source was determined not appropriate for WRAP activities]. David Stooksbury was agreeable to considering the High Plains Climate Center as a regional host <http://hpccsun.unl.edu/wind/>.

OBJECTIVES: Brian Parsons raised three issues which need to be addressed:

• Is resource data sharing addressing a primary barrier, or are there other larger obstacles to wind development in the region?
• If the data is already publicly available, what else can be done? (compile it consistently & make it more accessible)
• If this initiative is region-specific, are other states excluded from participating? as funding proposals must be fairly evaluated

COMMUNICATION: A new e-mail conference, AWEA-plains-WRAP@igc.org, is available to all parties interested in WRAP coordination. To be added to the list, send a request to <Owner-AWEA-plains-WRAP@igc.org>. In addition, several individuals and state WRAP monitoring programs maintain web sites that can be linked.

ACTION: NWCC will compile and circulate regional stakeholders' contact information and web site addresses. If there is interest, the web links and postings to the email conference can be archived on NWCC's web site <www.nationalwind.org>.

5. ACTION ITEMS - WHAT, HOW & WHO