Archive for Friday, January 11, 2008
Comment: Wind power risks justify rate request
January 11, 2008
Advertisement
By the end of this year, Westar will have put into service the largest wind energy project in Kansas history - a 300-megawatt, half-billion-dollar investment in the latest wind power technologies. It will help serve the needs of our customers for 20 years or more. Unfortunately, this paper's editorial chose to ignore that unprecedented commitment and instead criticized our decision to defer an additional 200-megawatt project, claiming that we were trying to profit too much from our wind power program. In fact, we sought to earn a return on only half our commitment.
Why are we moving ahead with the largest wind power project in our state, but holding off plans for more? Because of the realities we all face in Kansas in trying to make decisions today that will still be good in 20 years.
We believe in wind power - we came to the Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC) on our own to seek approval of our projects. Kansas has abundant wind to harness, and the technology of wind turbines has come a long way in the last few years.
But wind power has risks. No one can predict exactly when, where and how much the wind will blow over the next 20 years. No one knows for sure how the current generation of turbines will perform over the long haul. What is good technology today will likely change and improve over the coming years.
The KCC approved our request to recover our investments through future rates - but held out the option of revisiting the decision in two years and imposing penalties if Westar's project does not perform as we all hope it will. Similar potential penalties have never been applied to other forms of power generation.
It is hard to imagine any of us in our personal lives making an unconditional, 20-year commitment to anything if the other party warned you it might later change the terms, even penalize you. At least you would not take that risk without expecting something in return. The KCC also turned down our request to earn an additional 1 percent on our rate of return for these projects, even though our request was half the incentive return that the state legislature allowed when it sought to encourage the very investments we are making. One percent would be about a dime a month for a customer. Why single out for penalty or fail to offer incentives for the very form of power so many of us say we want to have? These wind projects, after all, are part of our broader effort to avoid or at least delay building a traditional coal power plant, the cost of which has nearly doubled in recent years.
It does not make sense for us to fully commit to a broader use of wind power with all the risks that come with it until all of us in Kansas are fully committed to share that risk. One cannot say he supports wind power and yet discourage or even penalize those who are taking the risks to move it forward.
Top ads RSS
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- Fireworks accidents result in 5 deaths July 6, 2009 · 1 comment
- Shooting in Douglas County sends Eudora man to hospital, suspect turns gun on himself July 5, 2009 · 40 comments
- Blog: Name That Tune! July 5, 2009 · 32 comments
- Blog: Sarah Palin: With Interest July 4, 2009 · 141 comments
- Tiller murder suspect advocates ‘justifiable killing’ via mail from jail July 5, 2009 · 42 comments
- Couple speak out on transgender issues July 5, 2009 · 52 comments
- Palin to resign as Alaska governor July 3, 2009 · 134 comments
- Three detained after Sunday nightclub shooting July 5, 2009 · 55 comments
- Palin links her resignation to ‘higher calling’ July 5, 2009 · 53 comments
- U.S. must restore faith in monetary system July 5, 2009 · 23 comments
- A new reign: Lawrence landmark the Castle Tea Room open again after extensive renovations July 5, 2009
- Couple speak out on transgender issues July 5, 2009
- Shooting in Douglas County sends Eudora man to hospital, suspect turns gun on himself July 5, 2009
- Increased government control poses threat to America July 4, 2009
- He made a decision, not ‘a mistake’ July 5, 2009
- Free State Brewing Co. and WheatFields among 8 Wonders of Kansas Cuisine June 19, 2009
- When will KU go retro? July 5, 2009
- CHARLIE HOAG HOPES FOR PLAYING TIME October 10, 1999
- Serial killings have South Carolina residents on edge July 4, 2009
- Bombers’ ace shuts out Raiders June 28, 2009
11 January 2008
at 2:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Ragingbear (Anonymous) says…
Wow. Did your lawyer write this nice perty letter for you?
11 January 2008
at 6:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“One cannot say he supports wind power and yet discourage or even penalize those who are taking the risks to move it forward.”
One cannot say he supports wind power and yet demands unwarranted windfall profits in order to implement it. It may have escaped your notice, Bill, but you own a rather sizable monopoly in a state with regulations that don't allow anyone but you to pursue alternate energy sources. Come on, put your greed behind you and do the right thing.
11 January 2008
at 6:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
grimpeur (Anonymous) says…
Bill, you want to explain how my bill went up 30% even though my consumption, through home improvement and conservation, went down 30%?
I didn't think so.
11 January 2008
at 6:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BrianR (Anonymous) says…
I ride a motorcycle and I reckon that the wind blows every day, all the time.
11 January 2008
at 7:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
leftIsRight (Anonymous) says…
There's plenty of historical weather data to make it a safe bet that the wind will still be blowing in Kansas in the next 20 years.
For the amount of money WR flatuated away on Wittig and Lake, there could have easily been a dozen or more 1MW windmills out beside the Lawrence Energy center. Wittig's $7,000,000 office remodeling alone could have funded 1/2 of those! Anyone with a clear view of that plant knows how often the wind does blow around here. It may not be the optimal wind, but that site is otherwise perfect: next to the grid, next to a population center, and already a visual blight.
However, Bill's just doing what CEOs do: protecting his bonus and stock options.
11 January 2008
at 7:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Keith (Anonymous) says…
“It is hard to imagine any of us in our personal lives making an unconditional, 20-year commitment to anything if the other party warned you it might later change the terms, even penalize you.”
Been married much? You know, for richer or poorer, etc.
11 January 2008
at 7:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bd (Anonymous) says…
You guys cry about coal fired plants and now you are crying about wind generation!
What a bunch of winers!
At least this guy had the balls to present a rely to the article.
Did sunflower electric?
Get a life!
11 January 2008
at 8:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
overplayedhistory (Anonymous) says…
What! your monopoly isn't as big as the other Bill (gates) so you can't do the right thing? Focus on the side business money your kids will be making in 20 years, from doing something that has not been done. You also don't know how much it is going to take to get coal out of the ground in 20 years either. Tell the people about 1 million dollar price tag for every delivery of coal by the railroads.
Bill quit praying on the ignorance of the public. There is tons of data on how these things will perform. We have been spinning alternators for power since there was a grid. As far turbine props stress, the aircraft industry has that one covered. I think solid state transistor technology to adjust power generation fluctuation has been tested too. The only question mark is how much the wind will blow. Or how much will your greedy BS blow.
11 January 2008
at 8:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
overplayedhistory (Anonymous) says…
If he had any balls he would of never written the article at all.
12 January 2008
at 10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
Bill,
It will require more than one access to new energy to keep Kansas juiced.
How about a bio mass project for the Lawrence area and as a back up for Westen Kansas.
Frankly I'm ready to shut this dirty coal plant down outside of town.
Perhaps Bill we should all share in the sacrifice. Is it time to reduce CEO pay for a period and put that back into the company?
I find it odd that utility companies increase rates due to the fact that the year preceding was not as profitable as projected?
As people take steps to reduce energy use does Westar plan to increase rates accordingly?
Yes we do need wind power. Are you paying royalties to farmers?