Report: Project could mean $75K per year
A FOUNDATION WIND POWER SIMULATION of what the two wind turbines would look like from Waters End Park looking north.
Foundation Wind Power
In a Dec. 18, 2014 report, Marks asked the Council to review options for wind turbines at the plant and to tell City Manager Brad Kilger to prepare a request for bids.
A commercial-scale wind energy development company, Foundation Wind Power (FWP), has prepared plans for two wind turbines that would stand 360 feet tall, Marks wrote.
“The turbines would generate 9,000 megawatt hours (mWh) of power and would generate $75,000 in annual lease payment for the use of city-owned property,” he wrote.
The electricity could be sold either to Pacific Gas and Electric or Marin Clean Energy, he wrote.
The project is likely to need review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), but Marks wrote that the level of that analysis would be determined when it’s presented for Council approval.
The Council has been looking at wind power since 2008, when it commissioned a consulting firm, HDR, to study such projects at both the water and wastewater treatment plants. It did not look at feed-in tariff (FIT) programs in which energy could be sold to a utility provider, Marks wrote.
That study, Marks wrote, concluded that a 250-kilowatt turbine at the water treatment plant could supply 37 percent of the plant’s power demands. In addition, two pump station sites could support wind turbines, the contractor concluded. But the Council didn’t pursue those projects, he wrote.
Instead, the city built a photovoltaic array on multiple municipal sites, including one that supplies 80 percent of the water treatment plant’s needs.
In 2009, the Council adopted a Climate Action Plan that encourages wind generation within the city limits as one way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Pursuit of wind power was included in the work plan of Climate Action Plan Coordinator Alex Porteshawver that was approved by the Council in March 2014.
Foundation Wind Power expressed interest in a Benicia wind project in 2009, and worked with Porteshawver in determining whether the water treatment plant might be a good site.
It indicated to her that the site could accommodate two 1.5-megawatt turbines, and submitted a plan for those turbines to Travis Air Force Base, which in past has worried that wind turbines might impede air traffic.
But Marks wrote that the military base told Foundation Wind Power employees that the turbines they described wouldn’t present a hazard.
Marks wrote that the city could build a smaller wind turbine to provide the rest of the water treatment plant’s power needs, but that could prevent the city participation in a FIT program. Instead, the city would need to pay for the smaller turbine’s management, equipment and other costs.
He wrote that both PG&E and MCE offer FIT programs, which they administer and offer payment for guaranteed generation of renewable energy.
A PG&E program, Electric Renewable Market Adjusting Tariff (E-ReMAT), encourages developing renewable wind energy projects between 1.5 and 3 megawatts to help the utility meet its 2020 renewable portfolio standard requirements of 33 percent of its power coming from renewable sources.
In contrast, MCE can contract for a 20-year term with anyone in its territory that wants to sell power from small-scale renewable energy projects of up to 1 megawatt.
That project limit lets developers avoid having to schedule the power with the California Independent System Operator, Marks wrote. “For many small installations, the added cost of scheduling power would limit the financial viability of the project,” he explained.
However, for a 3-megawatt project, the developer might be able to negotiate a purchase agreement with MCE, he wrote. “Alternatively, the developer could also apply for three separate 1-megawatt interconnections and then submit three separate FIT applications,” Marks wrote. Those options would be included in the city’s request for proposals.
He will provide the Council with simulations of what the 360-foot turbines would look like, as well as photographs of identical turbines that have been built at the Budweiser plant in Vacaville.
Marks will ask Council members for their views so staff can set parameters for a request for proposals, especially if the panel doesn’t like the size of the project.
“An RFP does not commit the city to any particular project, and alternative approaches may come back that involve less impact,” he wrote. But he said employees haven’t looked at smaller projects.
“FWP has suggested a project size that it believes is feasible in today’s market,” he wrote.
The City Council’s regular meeting starts at 7 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 250 East L St.
Sharing is caring!
How many millions will it cost us to generate $75k a year? How many decades will it be before we reach the break even point on that investment. More information needed here. Seems only the upside is being shared.
The only cost to us is staff time. The developer will lease the land and own the assets. The moratorium by the county in the interest of not impacting TAFB ops will not apply. The staff report example turbine shown at the brewery in Fairfield is not grid connected. It supplies a portion of the brewery’s power and the rest is purchased from PG&E. We cannot use that model because of our recent marriage to MCE, nor can we buy the electricity from the developer with a Power Purchase Agreement. Essentially, a developer will sell electricity to MCE and they will sell it back to us with an added cost.
Exelon is likely to propose turbines in the hills later, and the same constraints will apply. We will not be able to buy the electricity without passing through MCE. My opinion is that PG&E’s long term strategy is to eventually undercut CCAs and make them go away. Keep in mind they own all the transmission and distribution infrastructure, and have made two legislative attempts to quash CCA activity.
Every time I drive by the wind mills in Fairfield by the brewery, they are never running. I have seen one of them run at times but there is one there that I have never seen spinning. Not sure what that is about, but suffice to say it doesn’t look very effective.
I had the good fortune to be on SR12 to Rio Vista one day when the wind was ripping. There were turbines not spinning at the time. Some have braking systems that will not let them spin in high winds so as to not exceed design limits. Early turbine mishaps did not consider the powerful torque on the composite pylon. There are some online videos of these shattering the pylon in high winds.
Three big energy utilities are harvesting the winds out there, the ranchers are getting paid, and the livestock are happy.
http://fromthereporter.com/specials/made/pages/made53.html
I believe I have been saying that about CCA’s and Mce from the beginning. Remember the wind turbines would be on city property that is not in the city limits and will be county controlled. There is a moratorium at present on turbines and solar farms. referring to the recent lease by the city. No harm done it will never happen. As far as the other turbines go it is not a good idea. No control.
The county has already zoned ag land within our Urban Growth Boundary to be a Wind Resource Area, many years ago.
Foundation Wind Power got the green light from the Air Force for turbines in Benicia. It’s in the staff report.
The battle will be confined to opinions about visual impacts. I hope I can see several from my house in the future.
Thanks for the correction.