http://www.energy.appstate.edu

Factors Affecting Wind Power Development in

North CarolinaDr. Dennis Grady

Director, Appalachian State University Energy Center

http://www.energy.appstate.edu

Global & US Wind Capacity Growth, 1995-2006

010,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,00070,00080,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Meg

awat

ts

ROW US

http://www.energy.appstate.edu

Global Wind Capacity Projections, 2002-2030, GW

0

50100

150

200

250300

350

2002 2010 2020 2030

Gig

awat

t

OECD Transition Economies Developing Countries

Source: World Energy Outlook 2004

http://www.energy.appstate.edu

North Carolina Wind Resources

2,400 MW Utility Wind Capacity

Developable Land from Class 3 and 4 wind sites (14.8-16.8 mph at 50 meters )

http://www.energy.appstate.edu

Mountain and Coastal Region Opportunities

WNC Wind Capacity

970 MW on 93 miles of ridge from 485, 2 MW turbines

(Conservative estimate based on developing 5% of the developable ridge over 3,000 ft. with strictest exclusionary zones, and transmission access considerations)

ENC Wind Capacity

1,430 MW wind capacity on-shore and in sound waters from 2 and 3MW turbines over 26.5 square miles. (off-shore not considered)

Transmission bottlenecks heading west may be the largest restriction of capacity.

http://www.energy.appstate.edu

Wind Power can Wind Power can reasonably meet reasonably meet 6.5%6.5% North North

Carolina’s energy Carolina’s energy needs in 2015needs in 2015

http://www.energy.appstate.edu

Mountain Ridge Protection Act of 1983“No building, structure or unit shall protrude at its uppermost

point above the crest of the ridge by more than 35’ “

Exemptions to Ridge LawWater, radio, telephone or television towers or any equipment for the transmission of electricity or communications or both.

Structures of a relatively slender nature and minor vertical projections of a parent building, including chimneys, flagpoles, flues, spires, steeples, belfries, cupolas, antennas, poles, wires, or windmills

“The Legislature in 1983 had in mind, the traditional, solitary farm windmill which has long been in use in rural communities, not windfarm turbines

of the size, type, or certainly number proposed here…”

NC Attorney General’s 2/4/2002 letter to TVA

http://www.energy.appstate.edu

Coastal & Offshore Issues

• Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)– CAMA major permit required, reviewed by 10 state and

four federal agencies• Coastal Resources Commission

– Coastal Resources Commission indicates that permit will be denied for projects impacting ocean front area (including interconnection transmission lines)

– Must apply for variance for specific case• NC Archives & History Act

– Protects historical sites, even underwater• Submerged Land Leases

– Leases in excess of 3 years require special approval by Council of State and Governor

– Available only after all other permits are approved• Birds and Planes

http://www.energy.appstate.edu

Western NC Wind TurbinePlacement Issues

Placement % Prohibited % Not Prohibited % Don’t Know

Ridgetops 20 64 17

Ridgetops Clustered 28 57 15

Ridgetops with other towers 16 75 10

http://www.energy.appstate.edu

Eastern NC Wind TurbinePlacement Issues

Placement % Prohibited % Not Prohibited % Don’t Know

Mainland 11.9 72.8 15.3Mainland Clustered 14.1 69.6 15.1

Sounds 16.6 63.6 19.8Sounds

Clustered 28.0 50.2 20.5

Offshore 13.9 68.6 17.6Offshore Clustered 14.4 68.6 15.8

http://www.energy.appstate.edu

Turbine Placement Issues, cont.

Placement WNC ENC WNC ENC WNC ENC

National Forests 36 36.6 50.5 45.8 14 17.6

Visible from Home 22 20 66 66.6 13 12.4

With Other Towers 16 17.3 75 69.3 10 12.1

A Residential Turbine 9 6.2 79 90.1 11 2.5

% Prohibited % Not Prohibited % Don’t Know

http://www.energy.appstate.edu

Land Value Impact• Renewable Energy Policy Project (REPP), examined 10,

large (10+ MW) wind projects across the US, developed since 1998 looking at pre and post development land values. The REPP investigation could find no negative impact.

• Study conducted for Kittitas County, Washington determined that no negative land value impact was found within the viewshed of the 13 projects examined.

• Energy Center of Wisconsin conducted a detailed parcel by parcel analysis of land transactions within the viewsheds of the REPP sites and concluded that the impact was not systematically negative or positive.

• ASU Energy Center looked at 15 projects east of the Mississippi River (eight in the Appalachian Region) that were at least 5MW in size. There was no statistical difference between the wind project counties and control counties on pre and post land values.

http://www.energy.appstate.edu

JEDI: Jobs and Economic Development Impact

Developing wind power to meet 6.5% of NC’s year 2015 energy needs:

Jobs: • 5,533 direct/indirect 5,533 direct/indirect jobsjobs during construction years

• 1,169 annual operational jobs1,169 annual operational jobs

Local Spending:• over $280 million in local spending$280 million in local spending from construction• over $30 million in indirect local income$30 million in indirect local income per year

NREL model using county-level economic inputs to measure direct and indirect economic impacts.