Business Meeting #16

We would like to convene a conference call of interested Midwest wind stakeholders and National Wind Coordinating Committee members next week to discuss a regional wind resource assessment/mapping coordination proposal to present to NREL and the NWCC.

If you are interested in participating in the call, please let me know ASAP or at the latest by COB this coming Monday June 1st whether you have any conflicts next Wednesday, Thursday or Friday (June 3, 4, or 5) between 10:30 am and 3:30 pm Central Time (11:30 - 4:30 Eastern, 9:30 - 2:30 Mountain).

Please reference the time zone and be as specific as possible with your availability on all of potential the dates. On Tuesday, we will confirm via e-mail the date, time, and dial-in information.

In preparation for the discussion, please review the following draft proposal for pooling regional wind resource information prepared by John Dunlop along with comments provided by Steve Ugoretz and Michael Brower. Even if you are unable to participate in the call, we'd appreciate your feedback about this proposed initiative. Is it a worthwhile endeavor? Which aspects would you find most valuable?

Thanks in advance for your time and input. Heather

From: John R Dunlop
To: Heather Rhoads
Date: Wednesday, May 19
Subject: Regional WRAP Coordination

GIVEN

• Many states in the northern Great Plains (east to Wisconsin) have initiated their own state-wide wind resource assessment programs (WRAP)
• Many of those states conduct sophisticated analyses of the data they collect
• Individual states do not have easy access to data collected across state lines
• The data collection procedures, data quality checking procedures and analytical routines vary between state programs

VALUE OF SHARING WRAP DATA

• Individual states can use nearby data points to "smooth" their GIS analyses near state borders
• Regional analyses can identify quality wind resource sites reliably anywhere in the region, irrespective of the source of the data
• Areas with inadequate data collection may use regional data to *more* reliably predict the wind resource in those areas
• Establishing uniform data collection and analytical procedures will allow researchers to confidently use data sets from different states
• Regional data will assist in conducting computerized site analyses, such as the "Windatlas" routine, near state borders
• Uniform guidelines for data collection will assist additional jurisdictions in establishing new WRAP programs with the assurance that the new data will be compatible with other data sets in the region
• A regional data set will assist researchers in developing hourly to daily wind power production prediction procedures

OPTIONAL REGIONAL COORDINATION PROGRAMS

• Inventory state and other existing public wind data and wind data being collected to increase awareness of the availability of state- level wind resource data (proprietary and/or non-public data can be identified, though it would not be included in any data-sharing program)
• Establish uniform data collection and quality assurance procedures to facilitate sharing data across state lines and provide guidelines for new programs
• Establish a regional repository of raw data in existing formats to facilitate access to regional data by researchers
• Subject all regional data in a repository to uniform quality assurance procedures to ensure uniformity of data across the region
• Conduct regional analyses of wind resources based on qualified regional data in a repository, supplementing or supplanting state- level analyses
• Provide site-specific estimates of the wind resource to facilitate regional siting of wind projects
• Conduct region-wide research on methodologies to make hourly to daily wind power predictions

From: UgoreS@mail01.dnr.state.wi.us
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 1998 2:10 PM
To: hrhoads@resolv.org
Subject: John Dunlop's proposal

A couple of additional points to consider in regards to a pooled consistent database for wind resource information:

1. In the dawning age of competition, it may be better "public interest" for organizations without an economic stake to coordinate (if not conduct) the assessments. If the general data are available, anybody with the know-how and capital could theoretically compete in a wind bidding process. It may be beneficial for decisions to be made on the economic, environmental, and technical merits of the proposal, rather than the possession of "exclusive knowledge" of detailed wind data.

2. In addition, wind projects may not be exclusive providers to one distribution system (rather, more like "merchant plants"). Development (and maybe even permitting) may occur on a resource basis, rather than a political basis (i.e.: Buffalo Ridge vs. Minnesota, Iowa and South Dakota). Or the customers may be multi-state utilities, rather than one-state/territory franchises. Smoothing the boundaries becomes a more practical consideration in that case. (This kind of situation also may argue for consistency in review and permitting requirements between adjacent jurisdictions, I can't imagine any developer being enthusiastic for no-road construction in one state, and roads allowed in the next for a single project)

3. Of course, all of this depends on where the funding for assessments would come from. If it's from individual customers, pooling may not be as welcome. If from an organization like NREL, or EPRI, sharing may be easier.

Comments from Michael Brower (1998 May 22):