Print VersionStay Informed
Attendance:
Judel Buls – Subcommittee Chair
Debrah Pflughoeft-Hassett – EERC
Don Tucker – Grand Forks Wastewater Treatment Superintendent
Todd Matelski – Grand Forks Wastewater Treatment Operations
Judy Paukert – Xcel Energy
Sierra Kraft – UND Environmental Conservation Association
Pete Haga – City of Grand Forks

The meeting was initiated with introductions and an explanation as to why each person who was at the meeting was interested in attending. A review of the bullets that described the Mayor’s Initiative pertaining to our particular group was completed and the team initiated discussion on the first bullet, which is reiterated below:

· Increase the use of clean, alternative energy by, for example, investing in “green tags,” advocating for the development of renewable energy resources, recovering landfill methane for energy production, and supporting the use of waste to energy technology.

The committee determined that there were three paths to consider when looking at ways to increase the use of alternative energy, including:

1) Influencing the consumer to make changes on an individual basis that would align with this initiative;
2) Identifying alternative energy sources that could be developed, utilized to reduce costs, and protect the environment on a municipal facilities basis; and,
3) Promoting economic development opportunities that are aligned with the development, maintenance, or use of alternative energy sources.

PATH #1

In terms of path #1, it was determined that this committee would likely have somewhat limited impact, however, additional research into Ground Source Heat Pumps and Solar Power could be completed, as both of these alternative energy sources could impact consumers in a positive, economic, and environmentally conscious way.




Ground Source Heat Pumps

The committee discussed options for homeowners and developers for applying this technology and agreed that additional research on this topic was warranted. Judel agreed to complete this research and get back to the group with what she found.

Solar Power

The committee generally commented that solar power is likely not a good option as an alternative energy source in our area due to long periods of the year where cold weather, ice, and cloud cover interfere with effectively harnessing solar energy. However, collection of documentation that confirming the discussion was deemed appropriate. Sierra agreed to complete additional research and get back to the group with her findings.

PATH #2

In terms of municipal opportunities to both develop, distribute, and utilize alternative energy sources, it was determined that the primary energy options were wind power and methane. There was some discussion about a Wind to Hydrogen project that is taking place at the University, but it was noted by the group that Hydrogen is a largely undeveloped alternative energy source at this point and as such, would not be a good candidate for actual development, utilization, and distribution.

Methane Gas

Judel and Don provided an overview of opportunities for methane production, collection, and distribution as an alternative energy source for the City. It was noted that methane is available in a number of different forms from the wastewater treatment facility and the City’s existing and future landfills. Harnessing this energy source in an effective way is being done in other regional communities, but the infrastructure to make this possible in Grand Forks is currently not in place. The City is studying options at both the landfill and the wastewater treatment plant that would involve constructing appropriate infrastructure, but the timing of these projects is somewhat off into the future. As a result, only high-altitude planning and concept development has been completed at this point. It was noted that a summary of what other communities are doing in terms of methane utilization should be completed and tracked by the committee. In addition, the strategic planning associated with future projects and opportunities to both harness methane gas economically and provide for the transfer of it to end users was important. Three recommendations that this committee felt it could make at this time regarding methane gas production include:

1) The City should continue to actively pursue and plan for methane gas collection projects on a municipal level.
2) The City should consider the location of a future landfill in close proximity to existing infrastructure that also produces methane gas so that shared transmission infrastructure can be constructed to optimize utilization of the alternative energy source.
3) The City has been in discussions regarding development of a new Industrial Park. Although some preliminary sites have been identified, none of the sites considered the potential for economically transferring an alternative energy source to potential industrial users, which would result in a new revenue stream for the City. Consideration of a new industrial park in the general vicinity of the municipal infrastructure where methane gas collection is possible may be advantageous to both the industries that would be located there and the City.

Wind

Wind energy encompassed a significant amount of discussion at the meeting. In terms of a renewable energy source in North Dakota, this source has tremendous potential for future application and development. However, it was acknowledged that in the immediate area of the City of Grand Forks, installation and use of wind energy turbines is likely not economical or strategic as the City is located in the bottom of a broad valley and does not receive optimum wind. It was noted that two wind turbines are going up in the area. One was associated with University related efforts. The City believed that they were involved in a second, but the location was not confirmed at the meeting, nor the group responsible for the installation. However, neither were anticipated to be economical pursuits, but more training and research related infrastructure. The following action items came out of the wind discussions:

1) Don agreed to look into the application of wind energy at a utility he was aware of in Trenton, NJ.
2) Judel agreed to look further into the wind farm operations and processes in the Walhalla Area.
3) Judel agreed to look further at state wide studies that have been done to identify areas where wind energy development may be advantageous.
4) Judy agreed to follow up on what Xcel Energy is doing to participate in wind energy development and report back to the committee on how this may offset, stabilize, and/or impact energy rates in the future.

TASK #3

In relation to Task #3, the committee agreed it would be helpful to understand what types of alternative energy efforts are happening at both the University of North Dakota and the Energy and Environmental Research Center. The following action items were identified:

1) Sierra agreed to compile a list of actual UND efforts that were in development stages, including items such as the proposed wind turbine, and a co-generation project involving the university’s steam plant.
2) Judel agreed to discuss the Wind to Hydrogen project with Mike Mann, who was not in attendance, and request feedback regarding the specifics of the project.
3) Deborah agreed to provide a summary of Hydrogen power in terms of research and associated findings.
4) Deborah also agreed to set up a presentation from appropriate EERC staff working on renewable energy related efforts for the next subcommittee meeting.

The second bulleted initiative that this subcommittee was tasked with is reiterated as follows:

· Evaluate opportunities to increase pump efficiency in water and wastewater systems; recover wastewater treatment methane for energy production.

It was noted that the portion of this initiative related to pump efficiency improvements may be more appropriate for consideration as part of the Municipal Buildings and Facilities Subcommittee. However, it was discussed as part of this group with the intent that the information could be passed on to the appropriate subcommittee at the next regular committee meeting.

Judel noted that pumping efficiency improvements could be accomplished by completing an inventory of pumps throughout the City and prioritizing the pumps in terms of largest to smallest energy users. This list could be completed rather quickly and effectively as the information is readily available from municipal facility superintendents. At that point, City Staff and their respective system consultants could review operations of the most prioritized pumping systems and consider operational modifications to improve pump efficiency.

Wastewater treatment methane recovery was discussed above, and should be combined with landfill methane recovery as there is a distinct advantage to combining methane from both sources into one system.

OTHER TOPICS

Although it was noted that these topics were not directly applicable to this subcommittee, there was discussion regarding the following issues:

1) Water Reuse from the Wastewater Treatment Facility, in conjunction with Drought Management Planning
2) Empower North Dakota
3) State Policy support and consideration




NEXT MEETING

The next meeting was tentatively scheduled for Thursday, January 10th, 2008, beginning at 4:30 p.m. This meeting will be held at the EERC, pending confirmation from Deborah that the presentation by EERC staff is workable. Reporting back to the subcommittee on the various efforts noted for each subcommittee meeting should be completed by email prior to the February Subcommittee meeting, to facilitate further discussion.

Respectfully Submitted:

Judel Buls, Subcommittee Chair