North Dakota Legislative Energy Committee Minutes

NORTH DAKOTA LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT
Minutes of the
ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSMISSION COMMITTEE
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Roughrider Room, State Capitol
Bismarck, North Dakota
Senator Rich Wardner, Chairman, called the
meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.
Members present: Senators Rich Wardner,
John M. Andrist, Robert M. Horne, Joe Miller, George
Nodland; Representatives Tracy Boe, Mike
Brandenburg, Lee Kaldor, Todd Porter, Dave Weiler
Members absent: Senator Jim Dotzenrod;
Representative Matthew M. Klein
Others present: Tim Mathern, State Senator,
Fargo
Representatives Shirley Meyer and Lisa Wolf,
members of the Legislative Management, were also in
attendance.
See Appendix A for additional persons present.
It was moved by Senator Andrist, seconded by
Senator Nodland, and carried on a voice vote that
the minutes of the previous meeting be approved
as distributed.
COMPREHENSIVE ENERGY
POLICY STUDY - TRANSMISSION
Mr. Bill Malcolm, Manager, State Regulatory
Affairs, Midwest ISO, made a presentation
(Appendix B) on what the Midwest ISO provides for
services and for whom. He said the Midwest ISO has
recently completed a winter reliability assessment,
and demand is approximately half of capacity. He
said electricity sales are expected to be down
9 percent due to the recession. He said the Midwest
ISO received a United States Department of Energy
grant for a smart grid project. He said the Midwest
ISO has a midwest transportation expansion plan of
576 projects with $4.3 billion of investment. He
reviewed the new generator interconnection cost
allocation approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission in October 2009. He said the old cost
allocation formula placed 50 percent of the cost with
the interconnection customer and 50 percent with the
transmission owner. He said the new cost allocation
formula places 90 percent with the interconnection
customer and 10 percent under the Midwest ISO
postage stamp for lines 345 kilovolts and above; for
lines under 345 kilovolts, the total cost is with the
interconnection customer. He said the Midwest ISO is
conducting a regional generator outlets study to
develop transmission for mandates in Iowa, Illinois,
Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and
Wisconsin.
In response to a question from Senator Wardner,
Mr. Malcolm said the reserve market for electricity will
be transferred to the Midwest ISO on January 6, 2010.
In response to a question from Senator Miller,
Mr. Malcolm said the new cost allocation formula is a
benefit to this state because of the export of wind
energy.
In response to a question from Senator Horne,
Mr. Malcolm said the best solution for wind integration
would be for the storage of electricity. He said wind
energy and electric cars work well together because
the car can be charged in the middle of the night. He
said if there is too much wind to integrate into the
system, the system would need a price signal, a
mandatory curtailment, or plants to be taken off line.
In response to a question from Representative
Kaldor, Mr. Malcolm said the license plate rate design
is based on where the power sinks. He said the
postage stamp rate design is based on the average
over the system.
Mr. Scott Scovill, Director of Wind Development,
NextEra Energy Resources, provided testimony to the
committee. He said it is unfair for the generator to pay
for all of the transmission. He said there will have to
be further action on cost allocation.
In response to a question from Representative
Kaldor, Mr. Malcolm said interconnection customers
are generators like wind farms and coal plants.
COMPREHENSIVE ENERGY
POLICY STUDY - PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION UPDATE
Mr. Tony Clark, Commissioner, Public Service
Commission, presented written testimony
(Appendix C) on recent energy developments and
transmission issues. He said the recent decision by
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to
approve the Midwest ISO tariff revision decreased the
risk that North Dakotans will pay an unfair share of the
cost of generation development in our state. He said
under the former pricing rules, North Dakota utilities
were on the hook to pay for 50 percent of the
transmission upgrades when new generation was
brought on line. He said North Dakotans were
expected to pay 50 percent of those costs even when
the power was for the benefit of consumers
elsewhere. He said under the new tariff, the
generator will pay 100 percent of the costs, unless a
project is above 345 kilovolts, in which case the
Energy Development and Transmission 2 November 24, 2009
generator pays 90 percent and 10 percent of the costs
is shared across the entire Midwest ISO footprint. He
said siting fees totaled $1,197,250 during the 2007-09
biennium. He said in the current biennium,
developers have paid a total of $230,000. He said the
Public Service Commission returns the unspent
portion of the fees to the developer. He said since the
beginning of the 2007-09 biennium, the Public Service
Commission has refunded $718,414.13.
In response to a question from Senator Horne,
Mr. Clark said the fees are used for anything to
process the permit, including consultants, travel, and
direct out-of-pocket expenses. He said staff time is
not included. He said most of the fees are refunded.
He said the fees are placed in a special fund and
some of the fees are held back for future inspections.
In response to a question from Senator Wardner,
Mr. Clark said under the new formula, the developer
pays 100 percent and that cost is rolled into rates,
most likely through a power purchase agreement. He
said the developer paying 100 percent can create an
unfair situation. He said under open access, others
can use the same transmission for free. He said this
is like building a highway for one additional car and
having that car pay for the highway, even though
others can use the highway. He said the new cost
allocation is better than the old cost allocation.
COMPREHENSIVE ENERGY
POLICY STUDY - FEDERAL ACTION
Ms. Sandi Tabor, Vice President, Administration
and Policy Development, Lignite Energy Council,
made a presentation (Appendix D) on federal
legislation and issues and lignite study initiatives. She
reviewed the Waxman-Markey bill, the Kerry-Boxer
bill, and the energy bill. She provided the economic
impact of the Waxman-Markey bill. She reviewed
Environmental Protection Agency regulatory initiatives
to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, mercury, air
quality, and coal combustion byproducts. She
reviewed the Clean Water Restoration Act, which
would change the definition of navigable waters to
give the federal government jurisdiction over all
waters in the United States. She reviewed the lignite
study initiatives, including the beneficiated lignite
marketing study, the lignite-based advanced
generation technology systems study, and the carbon
dioxide capture technologies and costs associated
with lignite-based power plants study.
In response to a question from Senator Andrist,
Ms. Tabor said there are congressional members who
think coal can be removed as an energy source.
COMPREHENSIVE ENERGY
POLICY STUDY - TAX INCENTIVES
Mr. Ryan Rauschenberger, Deputy Tax
Commissioner, made a presentation (Appendix E) on
the three primary incentives for wind--sales tax
exemption, property tax reduction, and income tax
credit.
In response to a question from Senator Nodland,
Mr. Rauschenberger said income tax information for
developers is confidential because there are fewer
than five users of the credit. He said the sales tax
exemption is for anything used on a wind farm before
the expiration in 2015. He said some wind farms are
assessed at 3 percent because they were built during
the time at which property tax was 3 percent.
Senator Andrist said the wind incentives were to
launch the industry. He said developers are standing
in line to create wind energy in this state. He said
there do not need to be incentives for wind energy.
He said North Dakota exports 70 percent of its energy
and exports the incentive with the energy.
Representative Brandenburg said in 2001, a wind
tower would pay approximately $7,000 in property tax
in Minnesota and $20,000 in North Dakota. He said
the Legislative Assembly balanced the states with the
reduction to 3 percent. He said this placed a tax of
approximately $6,000 per tower on the wind company.
He said we were competitive with Minnesota and
South Dakota until those states changed their tax to
be based on the cost of generation. As a result, he
said, this state was at twice the cost per tower. He
said the Legislative Assembly reduced the tax from
3 percent to 1.5 percent to make the tax competitive.
He said if the tax had remained at 10 percent, there
would be no tax collected because wind farms would
not have been built in this state.
Ms. Sara Hewson, Tax Department, answered
questions for the committee. In response to a
question from Senator Horne, Ms. Hewson said
Minnesota has a generation tax of .012 per kilowatthour.
She said South Dakota is based on depreciated
costs at the local level. She said North Dakota is
comparable to South Dakota.
In response to a question from Representative
Kaldor, Ms. Hewson said this state uses a
combination of the income approach and the
cost/depreciation approach. She said the
cost/depreciation approach is weighed heavier
because some companies do not provide income
information. She said the depreciation is 2.5 percent
per year, which is book depreciation.
Representative Brandenburg said North Dakota
appears to have a better tax policy than Minnesota
and South Dakota.
WIND EASEMENT AND WIND ENERGY
LEASE PROVISIONS STUDY
At the request of Chairman Wardner, committee
counsel presented a handout (Appendix F) entitled
Wind Turbine Lease Considerations for Landowners
published by the North Dakota State University
Extension Service. In addition, he provided wind
energy leases from NextEra Energy Resources
(Appendix G), Crownbutte Wind Power, Inc.
(Appendix H), Basin Electric Power Cooperative
(Appendix I), and Minnesota Power (Appendix J). He
said he sent a letter requesting a copy of the wind
Energy Development and Transmission 3 November 24, 2009
easement or lease from each developer in this state
and had received four documents to date. The
following table summarizes key provisions in the
leases or easements:
Years
Confidentiality
Clause
Underground
Facilities
Requirements
Stricter Than
Public Service
Commission Rules Noise Other
Basin Electric
Power Cooperative
45 + 10 For wind monitoring
and operating data
Foundation removal
to 48"
71 dBA or less at 650'
from facilities
None
NextEra Energy
Resources
99 General clause Collection facilities
buried to 48"
Not to exceed
50 dBA within 200'
of residence
Waive right to jury
trial
Crownbutte Wind
Power, Inc.
40 None None None Owner waiver of
setbacks
Minnesota Power 50 None None Less than 50 dBA
within 100' of dwelling
Most-favored nation
payment
Mr. Scovill presented testimony on wind energy
leases and easements. He said NextEra Energy
Resources supports confidentiality agreements. He
said NextEra Energy Resources encourages
landowners to hire an attorney of the landowner's
choice. He said NextEra Energy Resources
compensates the landowner for attorney's fees. He
said NextEra Energy Resources pays everyone the
same in the same project. He said the marketplace
determines the rates offered to landowners. He said
landowners do not have to sign the lease. He said the
wind energy business is highly competitive and
NextEra Energy Resources wants confidentiality so
that competitors do not learn from NextEra Energy
Resources. He said NextEra Energy Resources does
not want bidding wars. He said the confidentiality
clauses are contained in private agreements between
parties, and if the marketplace demands the removal
of confidentiality clauses, then the confidentiality
clauses will be removed.
In response to a question from Senator Wardner,
Mr. Scovill said the financial terms in the agreement
are at arm's length and should be private and not
bantered around the community.
In response to a question from Representative
Meyer, Mr. Scovill said although some people may
wish to discuss the agreement and cannot due to the
confidentiality clause, those people had to sign the
agreement for the confidentiality clause to apply to
them.
In response to a question from Representative
Boe, Mr. Scovill said NextEra Energy Resources has
never sued any landowner in North Dakota for
violation of a confidentiality clause. The decision to
sue would be based upon the damages caused by the
violation of the clause.
In response to a question from Representative
Weiler, Mr. Scovill did not have an example of when
damages from violation of a confidentiality clause
might result in a lawsuit.
In response to a question from Senator Nodland,
Mr. Scovill said NextEra Energy Resources has an
escalation clause and payment clauses vary from
state to state.
Senator Andrist said he does not like confidentiality
clauses because they take away a person's free
speech. He said NextEra Energy Resources has
never sued, probably never will sue, and probably
would lose if it did sue. He said it does not make any
sense to have a confidentiality clause.
In response to a question from Senator Andrist,
Mr. Scovill said a confidentiality clause allows NextEra
Energy Resources to protect the economics in the
project.
Representative Brandenburg said if a landowner is
paid on a percentage, and the landowner violated the
confidentiality clause by providing information to a
competitor, the competitor could figure what was paid
in the final power purchase agreement.
ALLOCATION OF WIND RIGHTS STUDY
Mr. Tom Factor, NextEra Energy Resources,
provided information based on handouts (Appendix K)
on the allocation of wind rights, including information
on wind turbine sound and health. In addition, he
read from Romero v. Bernell, 603 F.Supp.2d 1333
(D.N.M. 2009) (Appendix L). In particular, the case
states:
Strictly speaking, the ownership of wind is a
misnomer. Wind, in and of itself, does not
appear to be susceptible of any ownership. It is
not like oil and gas in place where there is a
deposit of hydrocarbons which can be reduced
to possession by one or more mineral owners
of the tracts under which the hydrocarbon
deposit resides. Wind itself is more akin to a
wild animal or percolating waters which must
first be reduced to possession before they have
value. To reduce wind to "possession" appears
to require that it be focused on driving the fins
of a windmill which turn a generator and
ultimately generates electricity. Then and only
then can wind a) be reduced to possession and
b) have value.
Energy Development and Transmission 4 November 24, 2009
Mr. Factor said wind, oil, and water are significantly
different. Comparing water and oil legislatively to
wind is inappropriate. He said under present
setbacks, there is a 3.2 rotor diameter dead zone
surrounding a property line. He said most
manufacturers require at least a 3 rotor diameter
separation for maintaining a warranty. He said if there
were greater setbacks, a small landowner could stop
larger landowners around the small landowner from
developing wind resources, and that would not be fair
to the other landowners. He said the payment to
landowners at present is the floor for which
landowners are willing to have a wind tower. He said
unitization would require additional money.
In response to a question from Senator Miller,
Mr. Factor said 1.1 times the total height is
approximately equal to 1.6 times the rotor diameter.
In response to a question from Senator Horne,
Mr. Factor said if there is unitization then there will
have to be another income source, besides the
developer, to provide payments for impacts from wind
farms. He said once impacts other than those related
to real property are considered, there is an opening of
Pandora's box.
In response to a question from Representative
Kaldor, Mr. Factor said the Stillings' house is unique in
that it is surrounded by wind turbines. He said there
have been studies done on values of homes inside
and outside the view shed of a wind farm. He said
over time there is no diminution of property values as
a result of a wind farm. He said some people like
wind farms because they are progressive and people
like the way they look.
Mr. Warren Enyart, Secretary, M-Power, LLC,
presented testimony to the committee. He provided
written testimony (Appendix M) in response to
testimony at the previous meeting. He said he is the
general manager and a founder of M-Power. He said
M-Power consists of landowners in the Luverne Wind
Farm. He said M-Power gathered property owners for
a construction-ready transfer to Florida Power and
Light for the development of a wind farm. He said
when M-Power signed landowners there were no
promises as to who got turbines. He said M-Power
purchased a footprint. He said shareholders in
M-Power are remunerated. He said some
shareholders have turbines and some have no
turbines. He said the most controversial issue is who
gets a turbine and who does not get a turbine. He
said being a shareholder of M-Power to some extent
mitigates not getting a tower. He said the income is
distributed to shareholders in an equitable manner
from the power purchase agreement. He said
landowners on the edge of a footprint may need to be
compensated.
In response to a question from Senator Wardner,
Mr. Enyart said everyone in M-Power voluntarily
entered and received stock in the company. He said
the stock was doubled when the project was on the
ground.
In response to a question from Representative
Brandenburg, Mr. Enyart said in future contracts
M-Power would consider a margin for the peripheral of
a footprint for a person who does not want to enter
M-Power. He said there is a gentleman in the
footprint who did not enter because he does not sign
leases on principle; however, he supports the wind
farm.
In response to a question from Senator Horne,
Mr. Enyart said in the Luverne Wind Farm those
located outside the wind farm were adequately
addressed by current siting guidelines.
Senator Mathern presented testimony based upon
handouts (Appendix N) that relate to his petition for a
reevaluation of setbacks, the notification of members
of the Legislative Assembly of his petition, and the
response to the petition. He said there must be
support for business and families affected by wind.
He said people have had concerns about wind but are
afraid of being sued. He said he filed a petition in
support of their position. He said there should be a
means by which to protect unique individuals and deal
with people who are damaged by wind development.
He said there must be promotion of North Dakota
ownership of wind farms so that this state does not
become an energy colony. He said wind farms do not
have enough local ownership. He said the more
people are involved in the process, the more people
are willing and able to deal with the downside of wind
development. He said there should be a focus on the
Public Service Commission. He said the Public
Service Commission is confusing to people. He said
each commissioner should have expertise in particular
areas. He said the design of the Public Service
Commission should be reviewed.
In response to a question from Senator Wardner,
Senator Mathern said M-Power began as a local wind
developer but sold the project to a large out-of-state
wind developer. He said the profit made by large
out-of-state corporations should be made by North
Dakotans.
Mr. Ron Rebenitsch, Manager of Alternative
Technologies, Basin Electric Power Cooperative,
made a presentation (Appendix O) regarding wind
rights and project development. In addition, he
provided a white paper (Appendix P) on setbacks,
siting, and allocation of wind rights. He said siting
involved choosing the best wind sites for economic
reasons and balancing tower placement with
landowner concerns relating to cropland, access,
proximity, and lack of interest. He said after
exclusions areas are mapped, the areas that may
have a wind tower are greatly limited. He said siting is
critical because a 15 percent increase in wind speed
yields a 50 percent increase in production. He said
the effects of adjacent turbines is less than 2 percent
if within three rotor diameters for crosswind. He said
for predominant wind, the separation would have to be
approximately five rotor diameters to have less than a
2 percent effect. He said the cost to the project
developer for a wind turbine is $3 million to $5 million
Energy Development and Transmission 5 November 24, 2009
and includes the transmission risk, two to three years
of wind studies, engineering, permitting risks,
operating risk, market risk, and tax risk. He said the
landowner risks one-quarter acre to one-half acre of
land per turbine for $4,000 to $7,000 per turbine per
year. He said the key points to consider are whether
a nearby landowner should have virtual veto rights
over a neighbor's land. He said wind is not
"produced" on the wind site and could be considered
an interstate resource. He said existing projects
should be considered when establishing new rights.
In response to a question from Senator Wardner,
Mr. Rebenitsch said Basin Electric Power Cooperative
blades and waters roads continuously and pays for
this upkeep. He said Basin Electric Power
Cooperative avoids an area for a wind turbine if there
is an environmental reason not to place the turbine at
that location.
In response to a question from Representative
Meyer, Mr. Rebenitsch said there are spots where
there may be too much wind. He said high gusts shut
down the wind tower at 56 miles per hour. He said
North Dakota has fairly steady wind which makes it
ideal for the location of wind towers. He said the goal
of Basin Electric Power Cooperative is to place wind
towers at least five rotor diameters away from each
other.
In response to a question from Senator Nodland,
Mr. Rebenitsch said Basin Electric Power Cooperative
improves section lines with gravel, geotextile fabric,
and a ditch. He said roads on private property are left
as flat as possible.
Mr. Dennis Stillings, Valley City, provided a DVD
presentation for the committee, a copy of which is on
file in the Legislative Council office. The DVD
includes three papers on the siting of wind turbines.
Mr. Jim and Ms. Mary Ann Miller, Luverne,
provided testimony on the impact of wind facilities.
Mr. Miller said he had to spend a night in the
basement when there were high winds because of the
loud noise. He said when there is not any wind, the
turbine still turns and there still is noise. He said when
it is quiet the noise sticks out more. He said the
generator makes noise as well as the blades. He said
he is now experiencing shadow flicker and it is
disturbing.
Ms. Miller said her aluminum venetian blinds do
not block the shadow flicker in her office. She said
the only place there is no flicker is in the bathroom
with the door shut. She said she raises dogs and the
dogs are affected by the shadow flicker.
Mr. Miller said the tower making the flicker is 1,800
feet away from his home. He said the flicker lasts
20 minutes to one and one-half hours per day.
In response to a question from Senator Wardner,
Mr. Miller said one turbine causes the bulk of the
problem. He said as the sun moves, another may
cause flicker as well.
In response to a question from Senator Nodland,
Mr. Miller said the flicker began after the last meeting
of the Energy Development and Transmission
Committee. He said the flicker begins at about
8:00 a.m. and continues until around 9:30 a.m. He
said the standard of no more than 23 hours in a year
for flicker will be met by December.
Ms. Miller said the flicker takes away her most
productive time of the day in her office. She said she
invested everything in the farm where she lives and
has her business, and it is not fair that a wind farm
can impact her life this severely. She said North
Dakota citizens are unable to protect themselves from
large out-of-state companies. She said these
companies are not willing to work with individuals
because it would set unwanted precedents. She said
people are afraid to speak out against wind farms
because the neighbors may be offended and because
of confidentiality clauses. She said people did not
know that the wind farm would have the effects it has
on people.
In response to a question from Senator Wardner,
Ms. Miller said wind developers should provide more
information up front. She said there should be larger
setbacks from residences. She said there should be a
one mile setback from residences. She said NextEra
Energy Resources offered a contract (Appendix Q) of
$6,000 a year in exchange for the release of claims by
her and her husband. She said she did not accept the
contract because it gives claims to her property to
NextEra Energy Resources.
In response to a question from Representative
Brandenburg, Ms. Miller said the contract from
NextEra Energy Resources was objectionable
because it locked in her property for 99 years, but
allowed NextEra Energy Resources to back out of the
agreement with 30 days' notice.
In response to a question from Representative
Brandenburg, Ms. Miller said the only thing that
NextEra Energy Resources could do to make her
whole is to relocate her home and business. She said
because of state policy, the same thing could happen
to her in her new location.
In response to a question from Senator Wardner,
Ms. Miller said there are many people in her situation
and cited the example of a bed and breakfast owner's
business that was destroyed by the wind farms. She
said people used to visit the bed and breakfast from
around the world. She said now the guests talk about
how they hate the wind farm when they visit the bed
and breakfast.
In response to a question from Senator Wardner,
Ms. Miller said farmers cannot complain because they
have signed the agreement. She said Florida Power
and Light is not taking care of wind farms in other
states and cited an example in California
(Appendix R). In addition, she provided some sample
letters (Appendix S) from individuals impacted by a
wind farm.
In response to a question from Representative
Boe, Mr. Miller said M-Power is the group that sold the
site to NextEra Energy Resources. He said NextEra
Energy Resources had alternative sites when the
Energy Development and Transmission 6 November 24, 2009
Public Service Commission required NextEra Energy
Resources to move a tower.
In response to a question from Representative
Brandenburg, Ms. Miller said she is willing to work
with neighbors so the moving of a wind tower is not
unduly burdensome on her farmer neighbors.
Mr. Joseph Richardson, Richardson Farms, Fargo,
made a presentation (Appendix T) on wind power
development.
In response to a question from Senator Horne,
Mr. Richardson said the system he proposes is not
used in any state.
In response to a question from Representative
Brandenburg, Mr. Richardson said the five rotor
diameter standard does not address anomalous
situations in which there is a 500 foot dropoff and any
policy should allow the Public Service Commission to
grant a variance for anomalous conditions.
In response to a question from Representative
Porter, Mr. Richardson said competitive pressures
make it a disincentive for landowners to voluntarily
adopt the system he proposes.
In response to a question from Representative
Porter, Mr. Richardson said his system addresses
turbulence and fairness.
In response to a question from Representative
Porter, Mr. Richardson said those paid under his
system who do not have a wind tower, have wind. He
said wind is reduced by a neighbor having a wind
tower. He said the areas that would share are areas
that the resource is not developable because it is
inside a wind farm. Otherwise, he said, the wind
resource would be able to be developed.
Mr. Doug Schonert, Burleigh County
Commissioner, presented information on the study.
He said wind developers should be bonded. He said
some counties would not be able to handle the
cleanup of an abandoned wind farm. He said he was
for unitization. He said he has concerns with real
estate values, and it would be difficult to sell a
farmstead surrounded by wind towers. He said he is
a real estate agent. He said there should be state
direction in the area of wind development.
Mr. Tim Simons, Crownbutte Wind Power Inc.,
provided testimony on the study. He said he is
against the new Midwest ISO cost allocation. He said
wind towers need to be sited in the best places, which
is an exact science. He said a wind farm needs a
financeable wind report. He said in western North
Dakota neighbors are not downwind, but downhill. He
said bonding is not necessary because a wind tower
has approximately 350,000 pounds of high-grade
steel valued at $300 to $500 per ton. He said each
turbine has three tons to four tons of copper. He said
the copper is worth $120,000 to $150,000.
Mr. Enyart said M-Power, is made up of
150 investors. He said there are 75 landowners in
M-Power, and 74 are in favor of the wind farm. He
said the Millers were at the first two meetings when
M-Power began.
Mr. Factor said wind towers do not turn in low
wind. He said the power from the local utility is for the
oil pumps and lights. He said this power does not
spin the rotor. He said NextEra Energy Resources
considered the tower moves suggested by Mr. Miller;
however, the placement of wind towers is very
complex and NextEra Energy Resources was unable
to honor his suggestions. He said the second turbine
that Mr. Miller fears may cause flicker will not cause
flicker because the sun will change trajectory on
December 21. He said differences in terrain are the
norm and not anomalous in North Dakota. He said a
metal tower is a $3 million asset. He said it is fully
depreciated in 10 years and that is why there is a wait
of 10 years before the Public Service Commission
may require a bond.
Mr. Scovill said NextEra Energy Resources works
with county road departments. He said sometimes
roads are unable to be fixed immediately because of
rain. He said NextEra Energy Resources has a
$2.5 million bond on roads. He said NextEra Energy
Resources receives a call for every problem with
roads and addresses these concerns as part of an
ongoing relationship with the community.
No further business appearing, Chairman Wardner
adjourned the meeting at 3:20 p.m.
___________________________________________
Timothy J. Dawson
Committee Counsel
ATTACH:20