I've come late to this discussion, but, being a renewable energy advocate with relevant experience, I have some comments.
First, thanks to Amy for her references to ME3 and the state PUC regarding the Crown Hydro Project. ME3.org is an excellent local resourse on the broad topic of renewable energy. Thanks also to Steve Brandt for his follow-up post with some STrib history on the project. It's amazing how long this project has been in the making, and I hope the early visionaries get some reward for their initial investments and persistence to make the project a living, working renewable energy power project, open to the public, right in the heart of downtown Minneapolis. Granted, it is a small-scale power producer (3.4MW) relative to conventional utility projects. However, it is a renewable energy-based project, and, from an efficiency perspective, it will have a much better load factor (percentage of power production capacity actually produced on a monthly or annual basis) than any single wind-electric project of the same capacity in rural Minnesota. Xcel will purchase the power produced and utility rate payers will pay the capital costs associated with the project... a miniscule amount per rate payer, I'd guess; and, said costs have been reviewed and determined reasonable by the PUC. [note- I view a project like this to be a true renewable energy-based power producer compared with projects that burn recycled rubber tires that got included in a list of 'renewable' projects through political gyrations at the state capital... there is no comparison.] Amy asks, "...would the City of Minneapolis be better off directing that investment into new technologies now, like fuel cells, or to invest in passive solar power, and green roofs instead?" [MH] Since Xcel and it's ratepayers are doing the power production investing, Minneapolis seems to be largely out of the finance loop-- at least in terms of the capital capacity costs and energy charges. Perhaps the city and/or Park Board will have costs associated with roadway/parking-related expenses, but not energy production-related expenses-- that's my understanding anyway. Thus, the city has no power production funds involved to possibly better invest-- "direct[ing]... into new technologies now, like fuel cells... passive solar... and green roofs instead." Given the limited City and Park Board budgets (which consist mainly of property tax based revenues), I'd like to see them both stay out of any energy-related electric power production capacity investments, and I think it is clearly outside the scope of the MPRB mission. [However, I'd welcome non-property taxpayer or city/board financed investments in renewable projects in Mpls.] It's just very hard to compete with utility rate-payer funded projects that include a huge pool of ratepayers and where the renewable project represents but a small portion of overall installed and rate-based capacity; when the city would have to allocate total capital costs for the project to local property tax payers. Perhaps the city could use the power produced directly, thus offsetting their retail power purchases bill, but as a small power producer, they'd more likely have to sell the power at a wholesale rate to the local utility, rather than receiving a full retail credit. Who ever said life's fair? I think this project will depict a large bit of local technological and development-related history in the Mills District downtown, it will boost tourism, and will provide an excellent educational amenity for city, regional and global visitors to our Riverfront District. Michael Hohmann Linden Hills > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 11:50 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Mpls] Park Board and Crown Hydro project > > > ME3.org has some very interesting documentation regarding the Crown Hydro > Project. > Are residents aware this has already been approved by the MN Public > Utiltities Commission? > http://www.puc.state.mn.us/docs/orders/03-0064.pdf--- > Are residents aware this is an Xcel Renewable Development Project and was > approved by the PUC in 03 which qualifies for rate payers to pay > for this project > and the energy? > "On April 9, 2003, Xcel requested that the Commission approve its > Purchased > Power Agreement (PPA) with Crown Hydro and authorize recovery of > the combined > energy and capacity costs through the fuel clause. > On May 9, 2003, the Minnesota Department of Public Service (the > Department) > reviewed the > purchase price in the PPA, and concluded it was reasonable. The > Department > also reviewed the financial and operational risks in the PPA, and > concluded Xcelâ > s ratepayers are reasonably protected from both... > snip > The Xcel Riverside Coal Plant at 414MW in Minneapolis. Coon Rapids Dam is > scheduled to go back online in 2008 with 7.2 MW of power if that > gives folks > perspective... > snip > For such a small amount of energy, does it make that much sense > to invest in > this project? ... snip > And would the City of Minneapolis be better off > directing that > investment into new technologies now, like fuel cells, or to > invest in passive > solar power, and green roofs instead? > > Amy Luesebrink > Clean Energy Now member > Lind Bohanon and Shingle Creek Neighborhood staff snip REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
