Against the Wind* – Making Money in the Wind Business in New Hampshire – Part 2

Somebody's Backyard - Coal Fired Power Plant and Wind Turbines

Following up on my post Blow Wind Blow, where we took a look at the revenue side of the wind business, this week we take a look at the cost aspects of running a wind farm. One pleasing aspect of the wind business is that there are a lot of organizations promoting wind energy and, as a result, there is a lot of information available about wind and the costs associated with wind projects. The challenge is shifting through this information and pulling out the data relevant to New Hampshire wind projects. I have found the information from the American Wind Energy Association, AWEA, and particularly that from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL, to be particularly useful.
 
Another challenge associated with working through the wind cost data is that wind project financing is a complicated business. There is equity and debt financing, there are investors who contribute simply to access the tax credits and there are funding and repayment mechanisms that change part way through the life of the project. All of these different mechanisms are used raise funds from different groups of investors and to accelerate returns to the original core group of investors. Wind project financing gets rather involved and it can change considerably on a project-to-project basis, making comparisons difficult. To simplify our analysis, I have found the best basis of comparison, across different wind projects and renewable energy technologies, is to determine the levelized cost of energy, LCOE.

The LCOE is a way of calculating the aggregate costs for an energy project and takes into account the overall capital investment in the project as well as the annual operating and maintenance costs over the life of the project. Using the time value of money, all future costs are discounted, using a minimum desired return, to the present and are then divided by the discounted total of energy produced from the project to provide a single number that is indicative of the all-in cost of electricity from the project. Normally on any energy project, the LCOE is the first calculation performed as it is relatively easy to do. As the project development progresses, the calculations become more involved and sophisticated as different funding mechanisms are considered. Sometimes LCOE calculations include taxes and incentives but I have taken those into account in my revenue calculations in my last post so I have not included them in my calculations. I refer you to this NREL source should you want to learn more about calculating LCOE.
 
Wind projects take a long time to get off the ground. There are years of wind monitoring for a selected site, environmental impact studies, navigating local property tax payments and overcoming local opposition and legal hurdles. In addition, power purchase agreements and transmission line access have to be negotiated. This can sometimes take three to four years and a great deal of investment before ground is broken on a project. Even with years of upfront work, success in not guaranteed, as the NH Site Evaluation Committee recent rejection of the Antrim, NH, wind project has demonstrated.
 
Once all the approvals are obtained then the major expenditures in site preparation, road construction, foundations, turbines, turbine installation and transmissions lines are incurred. The wind business is a capital-intensive business and the installed costs of new wind turbines range from $2 million to $2.5 million per megawatt. Based on published investment costs for the NH wind projects, the costs in NH are of the order of $2.5 million/MW (see table below), most likely due to the local permitting challenges and installing the turbines high up on ridge lines. As a comparison, establishing a gas-fired combined cycle plant costs about $800,000 per megawatt – one third of the cost of a wind energy operation.
 
The other important costs are the annual operating and maintenance costs associated with wind operations. Unlike the gas-fired power plants, the good thing about wind projects is that there no fuel costs. Operating costs for wind energy operations include fixed annual costs, like land lease costs, state and local property tax assessments, maintenance contracts, the operating staffing associated with the wind farm as well as other general administrative costs like insurance. Variable costs include the costs of electricity to power the operation as well as unanticipated maintenance costs which tend to increase over the life time of the operation. Exact costs for all costs components vary from project to project and tend not to be available for specific projects. As a result, one has to rely on published data and industry averages. The table below provides the capital investment, land lease and property tax costs and estimates associated with the various NH wind operations that I have been able to assemble from various publications. The table also shows the calculation of these costs on a per megawatt basis. Overall, the installed capital costs for these projects have been of the order of $2.5 million/MW and the weighted average of the fixed land lease and property tax portion costs are $27,000/MW ($27/kW) per year.
 

The figure below shows the various costs components as well as my estimates of these for the NH wind projects. The cost data reflect averages and my estimates rather than specific costs associated with any particular project. These costs were then used to calculate the LCOE for a typical NH wind operation - which I estimate to be $126/MWh ($0.126/kWh). The operating costs, fixed and variable, when converted to the cost of MW of electricity produced, are of the order of $20/MWh. The annualized capital costs are $106/MWh, demonstrating that the majority of the cost, 84%, of producing electricity from a wind farm is related to the large upfront capital investment.

I will note that my calculated costs are higher than the $71/MWh national average calculated by NREL. The difference is due to the following:

• The capacity factors for NE wind projects – typically 0.30 – are lower than the national average of 0.38;
• The capital costs of $2.5 million per MW I have used are higher than the $2.1 million figure used by NREL;
• The non-capital related operating costs used by NREL are $10/MWh which are lower than my estimate of $20/MWh.

In the figure below I have incorporated my revenue diagram from my last post with the cost diagram above to provide a comparison of the revenue and cost structure on a single figure so you can get a sense of the margins in the wind business. It is important to bear in mind that revenues and costs vary over time and are different for each specific project. Many of the costs are fixed but the revenue that wind farms can obtain from electricity and REC sales can be highly variable and dependant on customer demand and negotiated power purchase agreements. Overall profitability, of course, is also very much dependent on how hard and how often the wind blows.

One might argue about some of the specific details associated with my cost estimates but they do reflect the fact that operating wind farms in NH is rather different to an equivalent (and often much larger) operation on the great plains of Nebraska. It is my assessment that the costs of NH wind electricity are high: the importance of subsidies from the production tax credits and the sales of RECs are therefore very important to the wind industry. The subsidy portion of the revenue stream is 50% or more of the overall revenue. Without these subsidies these wind farms would be under pressure to make money and they would definitely find themselves struggling to make headway against the wind* in a high cost and low subsidy environment.

Until next time, remember to turn off the lights when you leave the room.

Mike Mooiman
Franklin Pierce University
mooimanm@franklinpierce.edu
6/18/13

(*Against the Wind – A 1980 album and tune by Bob Seger. An oldie but goodie suggested by blog reader Laurie Smith from South Africa. Bob Seger had a thing for mid-tempo ballads telling stories of struggle and sometimes redemption. Here is the link – Against the Wind)

 
Click on this link to receive email notifications for Energy in New Hampshire updates

Blow Wind Blow* – Making Money in the Wind Business in New Hampshire – Part 1

Overhead View of Lempster Wind Farm Taken by Author

In my post Windfall, I briefly discussed some of the business aspects of New Hampshire wind farms and some of the challenges they might face. There is a lot more to the wind business here in New England, and I thought it would be interesting to take a deeper look at some of the revenue and cost considerations these operations face over my next two posts. This week we take a close look at some of the revenue aspects of these wind operations.

Let's start with the recent performance data from FERC for these wind farms. The table below shows the summarized first quarter of 2013 results for the three operating wind farms in New Hampshire, the two Iberdrola operations – Lempster and Groton – and the large Granite Reliable operation located near Dixville.

 It is clear that they did well in the first quarter. A few points of note:

• The Lempster operation output was remarkably high, particularly for the month of January, and they are showing capacity factors for the quarter of 0.42 which is surprisingly large. The average price they received for their electricity was $77.17 and, at times, it was as high as $102.99 /MWh. Clearly they have an attractive power purchase agreement with PSNH.
• After a miserable year last year, the Granite Reliable operation did much better with a first quarter capacity factor at 0.29 which is up from last year's value of 0.15. The bulk, 83%, of their sales went to the two Vermont utilities at rates averaging $96.57/MWh. However, there were times they were selling into the ISO-NE electricity pool at rates as low as $0.66/MWh.
• The Groton Wind operation is now up and running and all their sales went to NSTAR Electric at $51.65. Their overall capacity factor for the first quarter was 0.25.
   

In my last post, I pointed out the poor performance of the Granite Reliable operation, which only had a capacity factor of 0.15 for 2012, and which was half of the expected value of 0.30. During the week, a number of knowledgeable readers pointed out to me that the reason for the low output and capacity factor for the Granite Reliable operation in 2012 was that ISO-NE had put in place curtailment orders for several New England wind farms. This meant that they were required to reduce the amount of electricity they were delivering into the grid even if they could produce more. The curtailment orders included the Granite Reliable operation, which had to ratchet down its output to about 50% of its rated capacity of 99 MW. The reasons behind the curtailment orders appear to be reduced demand for electricity as well as grid load imbalances in certain areas. Wind-based electricity is a challenge for the electrical grid operator, ISO-NE, as electricity production from these operations is highly variable and, with the growing number of wind operations, the variability of electricity supply has increased. At the same time, the grid operator has to manage the output from fossil fuel and nuclear power plants that supply a great deal of our base load power and that cannot rapidly be turned up or down in response to varying output from wind farms. Curtailment orders for these wind farms is one way to manage the variability but that does leave the owners of these operations with unused capacity and lost revenue opportunities.

Wind farms get revenue from a number of sources. The first is from the sales of electricity, which could be via a power purchase agreement (PPA), such as the one the Groton operation has with NSTAR, that sets a fixed price for the price of generated electricity, or if could be by direct sales into the ISO-NE electricity pool where prices are set by supply of and demand for electricity. Prices for electricity sold into the ISO-NE pool can be highly variable over time as I noted in It Don't Come Easy and there are considerable price swings, even over a day, as shown by the chart below which provides 5 minute electricity prices for last Thursday, June 2, 2013. In the first quarter of 2013, the three NH wind farms earned almost $9.2 million dollars on total electricity sales of 112,084 MWh to earn an average of $82/MWh.

 

If you are an energy geek like me, you might be interested in tracking prevailing energy prices on the ISO-NE grid. To use a popular phrase in these smart phone days "There's an app for that!" You can download the ISO-NE ISO to Go app at this link. The app shows you local prices for electricity as well as how demand is tracking forecast and the fuels being used in the present generating mix. This morning at 6.45 am as I am writing this blog, the costs of electricity are only $24.68 per MWh. Yesterday at 3 pm when I checked, it was $45.37 per MWh. Typical screen shots you will see on this app are shown below.

 
The other source of revenue for wind farms is from sales of Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) – the so-called green tags which I discussed in It Don't Come Easy - which allow generators of renewable energy to sell the renewable energy attributes separately from the underlying electricity. The pricing for Class 1 RECs, which is the class that wind generated electricity falls into, is also variable but prices are presently high due to elevated demand. In fact, the prices are bumping up against the alternative compliance payments for the Class 1 RECs of $65/MWh. Alternative compliance payments are the fines that state-regulated utilities have to pay if they do not meet their renewable energy quotas and they set a cap on the REC market. Class 1 NH wind REC prices have risen from their lows of $15 in 2010 to their present value of about $62/MWh. Here is a link to a great article on recent Class 1 REC pricing.

 Another revenue source for wind operations, albeit an indirect one, is that associated with production tax credits (PTCs) for wind generation. The PTC is a federal incentive program for the wind industry that provides producers of wind-generated electricity a tax credit of $23.00 for every MWh of produced electricity for the first 10 years of the project. I know the PTC is a tax credit and not a revenue item, but for the purposes of my analysis this week, I am including the revenue category. But to do so, I must calculate its before tax equivalent. A tax credit of $23/MWh is equivalent to a revenue item of $35.38 MWh for a company with a 35% federal tax rate. (This might not apply to a tax-evading company like Apple - but that is an axe to grind another day). The lower the tax rate, the lower will be the revenue equivalent.

In some cases, wind operations that sell electricity into the ISO-NE pool might receive payments for holding capacity available should demand increase and ISO-NE needs to draw on more generators. These payments can be considerable and for the Granite Reliable operation they are of the order of $151,000 per month. These are fixed payments but for the basis of my comparison, I have, on the basis of the Granite Reliable capacity payments, calculated them to be equivalent to $8.30/MWh (assuming a capacity factor of 0.25).

In summary here are the four main revenue components for the wind farms:

• Electricity Sales - Presently these average about $82/MWh (2013 first quarter weighted average) but can range from $25 to $100/ MWh depending if sales are through a power purchase agreement or delivery into the ISO-NE electrical pool.
• Sales of RECs – Presently about $62/MWh.
• Revenue equivalent of production tax credits - $35/MW (dependent on federal tax rate).
• Capacity payments – these are of the order of $8/MWh if a wind farm participates in the ISO-NE forward capacity market. Not all wind farms do.

The figure below summarizes the revenue flows.

These four revenue items total $187/MWh, which is equivalent to $0.187/kWh. Compare this to the ~$0.08/kWh we typically pay for energy portion of our electricity bills at our homes. I don't know about you, but I am impressed at the revenues the wind farms are earning. With this sort of revenue stream, wind operators clearly start each day with the prayer, "Blow Wind Blow"*. Needless to say, not all wind farms earn these revenue streams all the time but these numbers do indicate that wind farm revenue is a whole lot more than just the sale of electricity. Subsidies generated by  the RECs and PTCs provide 50% or more of the revenue  equivalents for these operations.

 

Of course, this is only half of the picture. Establishing wind farms is a capital-intensive and lengthy business and there are a lot of hurdles to overcome. For example, just this week we learned that the small 15 MW Kidder Mountain wind operation in the New Ipswich/Temple region will be scrapped. The developer, Timbertop Wind Energy, could not find a way to deal with the different ordinance issues presented by the two communities. The NH site evaluation committee declined to take jurisdiction of the project as the wind farm development was below 30MW. In my next post, we will take a look at the costs of establishing and running a wind farm.

Until next time, remember to turn off the lights when you leave the room.
 
Mike Mooiman
Franklin Pierce University
mooimanm@franklinpierce.edu
6/9/13
 
(*Blow Wind Blow – A classic Muddy Waters blues tune covered by a bunch of artists. Here it is by Eric Clapton. Enjoy.)

 
Click on this link to receive email notifications for Energy in New Hampshire updates
    

I’ve Got the Power!* – Electricity Production in New Hampshire

My post this week is part informative and part instructional. When we debate and discuss energy issues, a couple of key concepts come up time after time and to be a contributor to an energy discussion, we have to know, or familiarize ourselves with, some technology and terminology. This week I want to explain two fundamental energy concepts. The first is the difference between energy and power, and the second is capacity factor. I will then show how they can be applied to electricity production in New Hampshire.  

Let's start with the difference between energy and power. The terms energy and power are often used interchangeably. This is OK in a general conversation, but in an energy related discussion it can lead to confusion, misunderstanding and bad decisions. It is essential to be specific about which term you are discussing so let's take a crack at distinguishing between the two.

 

The standard scientific definition is that Energy is the ability of a system to do work. It is a quantity which we need to get something to move, heat up, light up, burn, explode, etc. Energy also comes in different forms, for example, electrical energy, chemical energy, nuclear energy, kinetic energy etc. and much of energy technology is about converting one form of energy to another in the most efficient manner. Some of the more common units of measurement for energy are kilowatt hours (kWh), megawatt hours (MWh), BTUs, among others.

 

Power, on the other hand, is the rate at which energy is produced from a fuel source or is converted from one energy source to another. Units of measure for power include kilowatts (kW), megawatts (MW), BTU/hour or horsepower.

 

The confusion between these two often stems from the similarity of the units like kilowatt hours, which is an energy unit, and kilowatts, which is a power unit. However, it is necessary to understand that even though the units seem similar, there is a world of difference between them. This difference stems from the simple mathematical relationship between energy and power;

 

Energy = Power x time.

 

One my students in the Energy and Sustainability program at Franklin Pierce University recently noted that energy and power are analogous to distance and speed. Energy, like distance, is a quantity, whereas power is a rate like speed. Like the relationship between energy and power, the relation between distance and speed is written as;

 

Distance = Speed x time.

 

Let's consider a simple backup generator that I have been eyeing at Lowe's – the Generac 5500 Watt Portable Generator.

 

  (Picture source: Lowes)

 

This unit is rated at 5500 Watts or 5.5 kilowatts (kW), so the power of the unit is 5.5 kilowatts. If I were to run this unit for 1 hour, I would produce,

 

5.5kilowatts (kW) x 1 hour = 5.5 kilowatt hours (kWh)

 

of electrical energy that I could use to run my home. Running it for 24 hours would produce 5.5 kW x 24h = 132 kWh of electrical energy. The power rating of 5.5 kW is a measure of the rate at which the backup generator can take the chemical energy in the gasoline and convert it to electrical energy that I can use to keep my home running during a blackout. The larger the motor on the generator, i.e., the greater the power, the faster is the rate of energy conversion. In automobiles we are looking to convert the chemical energy in gasoline into forward kinetic motion to get us from point A to B. Again, the greater the power of the engine, the faster will be the rate of energy conversion. The pictures below illustrate this point.

 

(Picture source: Maserati)

 

The Maserati with its higher power, and larger, 700HP motor has the ability to more rapidly convert the energy in the gasoline tank into forward kinetic motion than my trusty and somewhat dusty blue Prius with its 80 HP motor. These two automobile engines, under specific circumstances, can produce the same amount of energy, however, the Maserati can do so in substantially less time. The Maserati will do so a lot less efficiently than the Prius but with a whole lot more fun. Even if I can't barrel down the highway at very high speeds, at least I will have my energy efficiency smugness to compensate me for the lack of admiring or envious glances for my ride. We will come back to the topic of energy conversion efficiency in a future blog post.

 

Let's go back to the Generac 5500 generator unit so we can discuss the second fundamental concept for this post – capacity factor. If I could run the generator solidly for 24 hours a day the whole year, I theoretically could produce;

 

5.5kW x 24h/day x 365 day/year = 48,180 kW of electrical energy.

 

However, if I were to use the generator only for 1 week during the year, say during a blackout, I would produce;

 

5.5kW x 24 h/day x 7 days = 924 kWh of electrical energy.

 

Dividing actual produced energy by the maximum that theoretically could have been generated in a 24/365 scenario produces a ratio called the capacity factor. In my case, it produces a figure of 0.019 which converts to a percentage of 1.9% and that would be the capacity factor of my generator for that year. In other words, my generator only ran at 1.9% of its maximum potential output. The capacity factor is a useful measure of how much of the capacity of an energy generating device was utilized over a time period, typically one year.

 

With these basic terms, energy, power and capacity factor under our belts, let's turn back to New Hampshire energy issues and particularly electricity generation. I have examined the 2011 electricity generation figures for New Hampshire that were published by the Energy Information Agency (EIA) and have combined, in one table, the number of generating units, their combined power, the energy produced from these units and the overall calculated capacity factors.

 

  

In 2011, there were 149 energy generating units in New Hampshire ranging from the large nuclear power at Seabrook, four coal fired plants, the wind farm in Lempster and 93 small hydroelectric operations, among others. The combined nameplate capacity of the generating units was 4,490 Megawatts or 4.5 Gigawatts, and they generated just over 20 million megawatts of electrical energy in 2011.

 

On examining the capacity factors, it is interesting to note how far they are from 100%. The only way a generating device can run at a capacity factor of 100% is by running 24 hours 365 days a year which is simply not practical or realistic. Equipment breaks down and has to be repaired or has to be shut down for maintenance. Moreover, power plants generating electricity make operating choices, based on prevailing wholesale electricity prices, fuel prices as well as demand to throttle back their units from their name plate capability. This reduces the amount of electricity produced which, in turn, reduces the capacity factor.

 

The units with the highest capacity factors are nuclear and wood fired operations which operated with capacity factors of 76% and 70%, respectively. These operations supply a great deal of the base load power to the electrical grid and therefore tend to run all the time except for maintenance shutdowns and reduced output during periods of low demand such as late evening and early morning hours.

 

Coal and natural gas ran at about 50% of their capacity and wind energy, which is very much dependent on wind speed and availability, has a capacity factor of 0.31 which is typical for wind projects. Oil and diesel based generators only have a capacity factor of 0.017 or 1.7%, which indicates these units are seldom used, due to the cost of producing electricity from oil. They function as back-up generators and are only used in an emergency. In many respects they are just like the small Generac 5500 unit, my present object of desire.

 

Even though the 149 New Hampshire based generating units are run by different operators with different technical and economic considerations, it is useful to consider their aggregated capacity. As noted above, the combined nameplate capacity of the generating units is 4,490 Megawatts or 4.5 Gigawatts. This combined capacity in a single unit would be one mammoth sized generator - we could call it the "New Hampshire Megarac 4500" – which is almost a million times larger than that unit I have my eyes on at Lowe's. 

 

 

 

(Generator Picture source: Lowes)

Based on 2011 data, this NH Megarac 4500 was operated at a capacity factor 0.51 which means the combined NH generating facilities only generated 51% of the energy that was theoretically possible. So, if we lose some of generating units in state, we have some excess capacity. However, we need to keep in mind that practical considerations such as cost and availability of fuel and maintenance requirements need to be taken into account when we shutdown generating units and expect others to operate at higher capacity factors. We also need to keep in mind that New Hampshire electricity generation is not an island unto itself. We feed into and draw electricity from the ISO-New England bulk power generation and transmission system which coordinates electricity supply and demand throughout New England. The six New England states have a combined capacity of about 35,000 MW of electrical capacity from 860 generating units.

 

Hopefully this has been an informative and instructional post and you now know the difference between energy and power and you have an appreciation for capacity factors. As you can see, we have a lot a capacity for generation in New Hampshire but it is crucial to appreciate that not all this capacity can be tapped at any one time. Running these generators depends on complex number of issues which include demand, cost of and availability of fuel, maintenance shutdowns and financial considerations and it all functions remarkably well most of the time due to the coordination of supply and demand that happens in the ISO-New England grid system.

 

In the meantime, if you see me in the parking lot at Lowe's trying to load a Generac 5500 into my dusty blue Prius, stop and give me a hand. Until next time, remember to turn off those lights when you leave the room.

Mike Mooiman
Franklin Pierce University   
mooimanm@franklinpierce.edu
3/18/13

 
(*The title of this week's blog comes from 1990's tune by Snap!, a German rap/pop group. Their song "The Power", features an incessant "I've Got the Power!" refrain. You do know the song, but as soon as I thought of it, the refrain became a relentless mind worm burrowing its way into my brain and I have not been able to get rid of it. Annoyingly, I now mentally hear it every time I flip a light switch. Here is the Youtube clip but be forewarned about that mind worm.)

Click on this link to receive email notifications for Energy in New Hampshire updates

 

Renewable Energy in New Hampshire – Part 1

In this week's post, I am going back to some of the early analysis I did so that we can take a closer look at renewable energy in New Hampshire. As shown in the figure below, about one-tenth of our energy supply comes from renewable energy sources. Transportation - largely ethanol in gasoline -  accounts for 12% of the renewable energy supply, heating for residential and commercial buildings uses 9%, industrial operations, 4%, and three quarters goes directly to the generation of electricity. In fact, renewables make up 15% of the energy that goes into electricity generation in the state.

 
At this stage, you might be asking yourself "What is in the renewables box?" so let us take a closer look at this. If we pop open the renewable energy box, we find the pie chart below.

 
By taking a look at the various slices of the renewable pie, we see that energy from burning wood and waste makes up just over half of the renewable energy produced in the state.

I was a little surprised at the large slice of wood and waste, and my first thought was that a lot of this energy comes from the incineration of municipal solid waste (MSW). As it turns out, I could not have been more wrong: MSW incineration is only about 2% of the renewable energy category. The bulk of the wood and waste slice is from the burning of wood and other biomass to generate electricity. It turns out that there are seven wood-burning power plants in the State and two more under construction. These wood burning plants are responsible for three quarters of the wood and waste slice (or 4% of the overall energy consumption in NH). My estimation is that 8% of the total energy input into electricity production is from wood. This is a lot larger than I anticipated and clearly fodder for a future post.
 
The remaining quarter of the wood and waste slice is from the burning of wood and wood pellets in homes and businesses. I, for one, am impressed that the Energy Information Administration, EIA, that put together all this valuable information is able to collect reliable information on firewood and wood pellet sales. A lot of these sales are to individual homeowners, only some of which are sold at retail. A good portion must be from individuals buying and selling truckloads of firewood to one another and, in many cases, even from trees on one's own property. This figure must be extraordinarily difficult to measure or estimate.

Turning back to the pie chart above, we can see that hydropower makes up about one-third of the renewables pie which goes directly into the electricity supply for the state. Corn-based ethanol, which is now part of the gasoline in our automobiles, represents 12% of our renewable energy use. How renewable this food-based energy source actually is, is debatable, but I will take another opportunity in the future to grind that particular axe. Wind is a relatively small component, only about 2% of renewable energy and driven largely by the Iberdrola wind farm in Lempster. With new wind projects underway, this portion will increase in the future. Solar thermal and photovoltaic are a minute fraction and, at this time, geothermal does not even feature in the EIA numbers. However, there are a good number of geothermal applications in the State but these tend to be small-scale residential or commercial-based installations and are thus difficult to track. It could be interesting to review this sometime in the future.

The pie chart shows where we were in 2010 regarding our renewable energy portfolio in New Hampshire. For our state it is largely a lot of wood and hydropower. Next week, in Part 2, I will be taking a look at historical trends in renewable energy and will look at where we might be going and if we should be spending so much time, effort and tax dollars supporting renewables.

 
Until next time, remember to turn off those lights when you leave the room.

Mike Mooiman

Franklin Pierce University

mooimanm@franklinpierce.edu

2/3/2013

Click on this link to receive email notifications for Energy in New Hampshire updates