Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 11 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Wind farm valuation equals $17 million
Figure reflects cost of constructing foundations
Published Monday, October 26, 2009
The building permit for the Bent Tree Wind Farm shows a valuation of $17 million.
The Freeborn County Planning and Zoning Office issued the permit Friday to Wisconsin Power & Light for 122 wind-turbine towers.
It was the final permit needed in the process. Now the Madison-based company need only build the structures.
Full construction likely will start in the spring but initial steps could be taken starting this fall.
The valuation is on-site construction. It reflects the estimated cost of building foundations for the towers. It does not include the cost of the towers and turbines themselves. They are considered mechanical equipment.
A valuation normally is factored to determine building fees. However, the county charged WP&L a set amount of $56,320 to cover the permit fee and plan-review fee.
The building-permit application was dated Aug. 18.
The wind farm is designed to generate 200 megawatts of electricity. The valuation came to $17,080,000.
This also is merely the initial portion. WP&L intends to build other structures, too, and there are plans to expand the wind farm to 400 megawatts.
During September the Freeborn County Planing and Zoning Office had issued 38 building permits with a listed valuation of $701,635. Now, with the addition of the Bent Tree project permit, the total estimated valuation for building permits issued by the county for the year increases to $21,148,361.
The Freeborn County commissioners on Oct. 20 approved a conditional-use permit for a transmission line to connect the wind farm to the Hayward substation. The Minnesota Public Utility Commission on Oct. 1 approved a site permit and certificate of need for the wind farm itself.
WP&L plans to build the Bent Tree on 32,500 acres near Manchester and Hartland townships.
The Wisconsin Public Service Commission approved the project on July 10. The panel has jurisdiction because the rate increases would affect Wisconsin consumers. Minnesota has a greater potential for wind energy than Wisconsin. WP&L will use the Bent Tree Wind Farm to help meet renewal-energy requirements of that state.
The project is expected to cost nearly $500 million. WP&L plans to recover some of the cost through $91.7 million in electric and natural-gas rate increases next year.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
Posted by Blackdog (anonymous) on October 26, 2009 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
WHO ARE THE CONTRUCTION COMPANIES THAT WILL BE DOING THIS PROJECT?????
Posted by wallyh507 (anonymous) on October 26, 2009 at 11:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The main highway to the construction site is County Road 13. This is the road that will be used to bring in all the construction equipment and the turbines to their sites. This highway is in such bad shape now...... How are they going to justify making it worse. (If it could get any worse). The catch is, if they fix it now they will be tearing it up with the heavy trucks. Then they will need to repair it again when they are finished. Who pays for that? I think we already know the answer to that question.
Posted by ConTribuTor (anonymous) on October 26, 2009 at 12:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"WP&L will use the Bent Tree Wind Farm to help meet renewal-energy requirements of that state."(Wisconsin)
Does this mean that this site will not contribute to Minnesota's need to meet renewal-energy requirements??
Posted by quandary (anonymous) on October 26, 2009 at 12:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It isn't a county road wallyh507, it is a State highway, off of that will be the county and township roads but 13 is a state highway. County 13 goes by the ethanol plant. So you know the answer , well then you should be happy !
Posted by wallyh507 (anonymous) on October 26, 2009 at 3:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Quandary, You are correct about the state highway I can't believe I called it a county road.......
Posted by HD (anonymous) on October 26, 2009 at 6:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't think they have awarded the construction contract yet. Whats up with the CAPS!?
Wally, my guess is we don't all know the answer. It should be the developer, assuming they are carrying weights about the limit of the road.
ConTribuTor, yes that is what it means. Not saying you do have, but why would anyone care about this. The MN mandate still has to be met.
Posted by ConTribuTor (anonymous) on October 27, 2009 at 2:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Maybe this site should have been used to meet the MN Mandate rather than allowing another state to take our resources.
Posted by justthinking (anonymous) on October 27, 2009 at 9:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
From what I understand, Wisconsin residents didn't want the electricity from this project because it's really going to push the cost of their electric bills up, so if we could have the benefit from wind energy in Minnesota from these turbines, do we really want it? It would push the cost of our electric bills up too. It's not a win/win situation like they want you to believe with wind energy.
Posted by allake (anonymous) on October 27, 2009 at 11:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Justthinking,
Wisconsin residents may not want wind, as it will drive up the costs, as will the Minnesota mandate on Minnesota utilities. The residents that object are objecting to the cost not where the energy is produced.
ConTribuTor, there is no requirement that the renewable energy required by the Minnesota mandate be produced in Minnesota.
Posted by justfacts (anonymous) on October 28, 2009 at 10:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
That portion of State Highway 13 is already slated for a rebuild next year with or without this project. So hopefully there will be a good road there regardless.
This project will be payed for by customers of Alliant in Wisconsin.
This goes toward satisfying Wisconsins mandate toward renewable.
Minnesota electric bills can not legally be raised to pay for any part of this project.
Posted by ConTribuTor (anonymous) on October 28, 2009 at 12:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
allake
Apparently this site is an ideal and good resource for wind; otherwise no one (Wisconsin) would be interested in developing it. If Minnesota needs to find these resources in the future, will they be available here or will we be paying more because we have to go outside of our state boundaries? Many things are not being considered for the future. There are many new developments which could make today’s turbines obsolete.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technolo...
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)