A populist power movement is afoot in rural Iowa. But will reluctant rural electric co-ops and utilities defend their turf and defeat local control?

By Carolyn Szczepanski

"Unreal."

For Bev Swecker, there's simply no other word to describe the past eight years. There's no other way to sum up nearly a decade of legal battles that have turned a Dana farmer into a rural crusader for renewable energy, a former school board member into a determined activist bent on writing a tell-all book.

Bev and Greg Swecker admit they were terribly na•ve back in 1998. In their minds, it had been two decades since the federal Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) required that energy utilities purchase power from small producers of renewable energy. So though they knew they were treading into relatively unknown territory when they purchased a second-hand wind turbine to offset some of the utility bill for their farm and hog operation, they figured the laws explicitly granted them equal access to the electrical grid. They never expected that a dispute with their rural electric cooperative (REC) - Midland Power Cooperative - would leave their turbine motionless for years while the Sweckers continue to spin in legal circles to get, what they believe, is a fair shake from an openly reluctant industry.
"It has been unreal," Bev says.

"If you say you want to put up a renewable energy project, you're at the bottom of the list; guaranteed," Greg adds. "You become the lowest thing on earth, according to the REC."

They say they've endured public accusations from Midland that "for every revolution of the wind turbine, we're stealing revenue out of the children's education funds." They were plunged into darkness for weeks when Midland wouldn't cash a check that included payment for the service that would allow the turbine to start spinning. And, for dragging their feet and running afoul of a federal mandate, Midland has gotten slaps on the wrist in more than one legal jurisdiction, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) concluding that "Midland ha[s] not engaged in good faith dealing with Mr. Swecker," and there are few other cases that present "such a clear example of a utility using every means at its disposal to avoid making purchases from QFs [qualifying facilities]."

"They've been trying to intimidate us, harassing us, trying to do everything they can just because we want to exercise our legal rights," Bev says. "Basically, Midland's thoughts are that no one can tell them or their board how to interpret PURPA, that they have sole authority to interpret it the way they want to. That's absurd."

Next month, with filings still pending in federal and district jurisdictions, the Sweckers will reach the eight-year mark in their dispute with Midland. On one side: the Sweckers arguing that Midland is still trying to get away with rural route robbery, undervaluing the price they pay for the farmers' power and pushing for a metering system that would make it impossible for the family to use their own homegrown electricity. On the other side: Midland's general manager Roger Wieck, convinced that if the Sweckers get the inflated price they're demanding, the other co-op members will have to pick up the financial slack.

And while the years of litigation hinge on fractions of pennies, the Sweckers' case is of such importance that the federal mediator sent to broker a contract between the two parties told Bev that, "I deal in million-dollar deals all the time and I can't believe Midland has spent all this money on one little turbine." The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has also noted that "the legal fees Midland has paid for litigating this dispute here and in court surely must exceed what it would have cost Midland to enter a net metering arrangement for Mr. Swecker long ago."

But as a growing number of farmers are expressing unprecedented interest in small-wind energy production, the large utility companies and dispersed RECs openly acknowledge that encouraging such a populist power structure isn't in their best interests. And, as lawmakers arm small producers with financial incentives, the utilities and RECs are determined to defend their turf. Even if it means protracted legal battles.

"The material facts are there," Greg says of the continued dispute with Midland. "We're going strictly by what the law says we're allowed to do."

"And somewhere along the line, someone has to ensure justice in this case," Bev says staunchly. "We have no intention of giving up on this. It's too important to the whole country."

Bill Haman is a pollster, of sorts. Not that you would find that designation in his job title at the Iowa Energy Center where he administers the state's Alternative Energy Revolving Loan Program. But, in his regular presentations around the state on renewable power, he's been taking a very specific survey of rural Iowa residents. For years, he's kicked off his sessions with three simple questions:

"How many people in the audience are here because they have a piece of land and want someone to come build a wind turbine on it to receive a lease payment? How many want to build a wind turbine and sell the energy to the utility as an extra source of income? How many want to build a small wind turbine to displace their utility bill?"

Five years ago, Haman says, virtually every hand would shoot up after the first question.

Wrong answer.

Back then, Haman says, the talk of the town was welcoming larger developers to plant one of their wind turbines on a few acres of farmers' land and pay them a couple thousand dollars in annual lease payments. But that advice, Haman says, cost Iowa a fortune.

"That missed the whole point," he explains. "With a wind turbine, if you were to let someone come and build a wind farm development on your land, the lease payments you'd receive are between 1 to 3 percent of the revenue it generates. How many people, if they had oil or gold on their property, how many would sell that for 1 to 3 percent? We haven't recognized that [wind] is no different than oil or gold, and Iowa has given that away to companies located out of state."

According to the American Wind Energy Association, Iowa ranks 10th in the nation in wind potential - enough potential, according to the Department of Natural Resources, to produce 4.8 times more energy than Iowans consume each year. But instead of harvesting that homegrown resource, Iowans blow $9 billion on primarily coal-fired power each year, leaking a full $3.3 billion of that straight into out-of-state coffers. And, don't be deceived by the fact that the state currently sits at third in the country in wind-generated electricity, wind advocates say. According to the DNR, a full 99 percent of Iowa's 837 megawatts of wind capacity are held by the major utilities, with only a tiny sliver produced by private citizens and publicly owned entities - 5.2 and 5.3 megawatts respectively.

And a growing body of research proves that buying into the perception that wind is only efficient on a large-scale basis in the hands of the big utilities is bad economics for any self-respecting state. A report from the Iowa Policy Project last year summarized a host of such analyses, including a Minnesota study that showed "locally owned, dispersed generation can produce 25 to 150 more jobs and $700,000 to $4.3 million more in total value added than the concentrated facility ownership scenario."

That's the kind of data that gets policymakers' attention. Now in his fourth year as the co-chairman of the Iowa Senate's Natural Resources and Environment Committee, Republican Sen. Hurbert Houser was quickly convinced that farmers were right in urging legislators to put some money where the momentum is.

"The reports we got clearly showed that if a wind turbine or wind farm is owned by the people in the area, it has a lot more economic benefit than if it's out of state, like Florida Power and Light," Houser says. "It's basic economics."

So last year, despite opposition from the utilities for three straight sessions, state legislators passed a 1.5 cent renewable energy tax credit directed exclusively at small, locally owned green energy projects. "And once we gave it over to the Iowa Utilities Board to administer, it filled up in about two weeks time," Houser says of the available credits, capped at a total of 90 megawatts. "In fact, there's a waiting list for another 90 or 100 out there, and I think people quit coming in because there is such a huge waiting list."

But people certainly haven't quit talking about it and they're lining up to get more information.

"Over the past year or so, a lot of farmers have been saying, 'What's going on with this wind deal? I've been hearing so much about it,'" says Denny Harding, business services administrator for the Iowa Farm Bureau. So spurred on by the mounting interest, the organization hosted a series of half-day seminars over the past two months aimed at helping landowners understand how and if a wind project is feasible for them. Such seminars are old hat for Haman, who has been speaking at similar events for years - often to half-empty rooms. But flash forward to the Farm Bureau sessions in past weeks and the place has been packed: not one has drawn fewer than 150 farmers and landowners.

Tom Wind (right), owner of Wind Utility Consulting in Jefferson and leader in the industry for the past 15 years, says it's an indication that the industry may be reaching the tipping point. While the Sweckers (below) were ahead of the curve in daring to purchase a privately owned wind turbine in 1998, experts are now forecasting that interest in private, small ownership is peaking. "The tax incentive and the Farm Bureau meetings together," Wind says, "that's what's really done it."

So, unlike five years ago, deference to the larger developers has given way to a sense of rural empowerment, causing Haman's unofficial survey to shift dramatically. Now, when Haman asks if audience members want to lease their land, there is barely a rustle in the crowded room. But when he suggests taking full ownership, the hands shoot up. "The past couple of meetings only two or three hands out of 100 or 200 in the room want someone to come build on their land," he says. "Most people want to take full advantage of the wind they have and make it work for them, rather then let it work for someone else."

Just one problem: while policymakers are cutting incentives and farmers are getting energized, power companies and electric co-ops openly admit that handing over power production to small producers is a threat to the bottom line.

Sitting around the dining room table in a home so personalized with country-style knick knacks and earth-toned furniture that it would fit perfectly in a rural living magazine, Bev and Greg Swecker say they never expected to be at the forefront of national precedent on renewable energy.

"We never started out to become activists, but the more they tried to prevent us, the more they didn't allow us to have our rights, the more activist I've become," Bev says. "I think the need for renewable energy has increased so much since we started, that this has become nationwide. When we first started, we didn't even want any publicity. It was embarrassing."

It was 1998 when the Sweckers purchased a $45,000 wind turbine and contacted Midland - the local electric coop that serves 8,600 households and business in a 13-county area of Central Iowa - about providing three-phase electrical service to their farm just west of Dana. And though Greg sent multiple checks for the service that would get the turbine up and running, Midland refused to cash them. And thus the first protracted battle began: The Sweckers said they'd withhold their light bill payment until they got the three-phase service. Midland cut off their lights for nearly a month. The Sweckers filed complaints with the Iowa Utilities Board, which ruled that the disconnection has been "unlawful" and the tariff Midland was charging the Sweckers for the connection was "discriminatory."

Midland General Manager Roger Wieck counters that it was the Sweckers who were dragging their feet, refusing to sign a contract that would govern their access to the grid. Bev shoots back that Wieck committed fraud after the IUB ruling by sending the same contract that the board had ruled discriminatory, changing only the cover letter. In fact, she got so frustrated she had Wieck fax her the documents every time so she could prove, with the date and time, that the contract never changed. Ultimately, it took a federal mediator out of Washington four months to broker a two-year contract between the two parties - a contract that is still the source of bitter controversy.

But the battle to get on the grid was only the opening volley. Still raging is the war over the price Midland should pay the Sweckers for the power they feed into the system and the means by which Midland measures it. Producing more kilowatts than they could possibly use in their modest home or mid-sized farm, the Sweckers say the price for their excess power, as dictated by federal law, must be Midland's "avoided cost" - the price the REC would pay for that power if it weren't coming from the Sweckers. So, if the financial documents Bev obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request show that, in 2005, Midland was paying the Central Iowa Power Cooperative (CIPCO) 5.4 cents per kilowatt hour, the Sweckers say that's what Midland should be paying them. But under their current contract, Midland is paying the Sweckers 2.5 cents per kilowatt.

"Midland doesn't generate anything, but simply purchases all of its kilowatts from CIPCO," Bev says. "A methodology would not change simply because Midland wants to pay half price to the renewable energy producers."

But, according to Midland, that's comparing apples to oranges. Wieck says that five cents per kilowatt isn't the avoided cost at all. It's the average cost. And that number doesn't take into account a host of other provisions Midland must account for to ensure they have enough reliable power for their members. "If Midland would pay the rate sought by the complainants," Wieck says, "it would be duplicating expense it would have to continue paying its supplier, and result in an increased cost to its other rate payers."

That rate battle is ongoing, with the Sweckers determined to get paid the same as any other generator. But for Midland, the potential cost of the Swecker case isn't just the potential precedent of higher prices paid to small producers. It's the threat that they would be forced into net metering. Touted by wind advocates as the best means of brokering the power exchange, net metering measures the energy trade between a producer and a utility on one meter. So, when the Sweckers are producing more than they need and feed power onto the grid, their meter rolls back. When they aren't producing enough for themselves and take power off the system, their meter rolls forward. At the end of the month, the parties consult the meter and see who owes who.

RECs are staunchly opposed to net metering mandates. Jay Morrison, senior counsel for the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, explains, net metering is unfair because all power isn't created equal. "Doing a one-for-one in kilowatt hours," he says, "means they're paying wholesale for fully delivered retail power that includes the costs of transmission and distribution and any taxes that might be included."

But, Bev says, without net metering the Sweckers' property rights are held hostage. She suggests a simple analogy: a backyard garden. Imagine you plant a crop on your property, but instead of harvesting the produce and bringing it straight into the kitchen you have to sell it to the grocery store first. Sure, they'll buy at it wholesale prices, but you have to pay more when you come back as a consumer and pay retail.

"My argument is, 'I produced them and I'm not selling until my needs are met each month,'" she says of the homegrown kilowatts.

"But they don't want you to be able to offset your power," Greg continues.
"They want to be able to make a profit off of you," Bev adds.

Technically speaking, Iowa is one of more than 20 states that require net metering. But that mandate applies only to the rate-regulated utilities, not RECs. Even so, a district court judge, the Iowa Supreme Court and FERC have all ordered that Midland net meter. But Midland kept appealing. And finally, last year the almost unprecedented happened: the Iowa Supreme Court reversed its own decision, ruling that there was no law "authorizing the courts to make such a pronouncement without placing the courts in the position of acting as a regulatory board for such utilities."

"In 33 years of practice, I'd never seen it, not without any new arguments or evidence," says Wally Taylor, the Sweckers' attorney. "And it's not like it was 4-3 to begin with. It was 6-1. And then 6-1 the other way."

But even in that decision, Justice Jerry Larson offered a scathing dissent, noting that "it should appear obvious that Midland's charging co-generators, such as the Sweckers, three times what Midland pays for the same commodity is not just and reasonable. Further, Midland's obstructiveness [sic] in encouraging alternative generation frustrates the purpose of PURPA and surely cannot be considered to be in the public interest. Midland thumbs its nose at fairness and the goals of PURPA and claims, in effect, that no one can do anything about it."

So, left hanging by the Supreme Court, the Sweckers went back to the highest power: FERC. And despite the Supreme Court's flip-flop, FERC hadn't changed its opinion since its original 2003 order. In fact, it not only ordered net metering, but also added a jab at the REC's behavior. The last line of the ruling reads: "We cannot help but note that Midland has used the legal process to thwart efforts to compel it to comply with PURPA for seven years, with a long history of using every means at its disposal to avoid its obligation to purchase from Mr. Swecker's small wind-powered QF."

"And that's still the ruling," Taylor says, "but Midland has appealed and could take that all the way. This could go to U.S. Supreme Court. And it isn't just Midland; it's the entire REC industry. The National Rural Electric Coop Association has filed briefs on behalf of Midland. The federal rural electric administration has filed on behalf of Midland. The whole industry is trying to screw the public."

There's little doubt that Gregg Heide is the envy of scores of Iowa farmers. With dozens on the state waiting list, Heide was one of the first in line for the state's new small-producer, renewable energy tax credit.

Of course, he had already done plenty of homework before he submitted the application last summer. A fourth-generation Pomeroy farmer, his interest in renewable energy was piqued when a developer came knocking a few years back, asking Heide if he'd be interested in leasing his land for the developer's wind project. But instead of selling out, Heide held on to his land's assets and started to research his site, spending thousands on extensive analysis of his wind conditions. And after years of scientific modeling, Heide is now looking to put up a wind turbine capable of producing enough wholesale energy to power several hundred homes.

With his project plugging towards completion, Heide says he's gotten calls from at least a dozen farmers asking him how he's done it. But while he may be moving ahead with the help of the state, Heide says too many guys like him are getting left behind by a lack of regulations that allow utilities to kick them around.

"We have this federal PURPA law that requires them to purchase electricity from folks like me, but it was written years ago and, depending on who the utility is, it gets interpreted all over the board," Heide says. "What we need to establish is some kind of standard tariff and interconnection guidelines and really open this up for local ownership. The tax credit is super, but more regulatory work needs to be done."

To say the regulatory structure is highly complex would be oversimplifying, experts admit. And when it comes to making sure the RECs are giving producers a fair deal, state authorities say their jurisdiction is "limited." As David Lynch, general counsel for the Iowa Utilities Board (IUB), explains, RECs are allowed to "set their own rules" regarding interconnection terms and avoided costs. True, there is a state law that gives the board jurisdiction when an alternative energy producer claims it's been unfairly discriminated against, but as IUB spokesman Rob Hillesland explains, "the board can look at the case and say, 'No, that's discriminatory; that won't fly, you have to do something else,'" but it can't broker specific rate agreements between small producers and RECs. Such disputes are the domain of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. And that "limited" and disperse authority - as the Sweckers say their jurisdiction-jumping case proves - can become a de facto deterrent for interested producers.

When it comes to the rate-regulated utilities, however, regulation is tighter. But even while FERC is adopting standardized interconnection guidelines that are currently in the public comment phase, some say a change to PURPA in the 2005 Energy Policy Act could make those standards a moot point. For the past 25 years, PURPA dictated that rate-regulated utilities (MidAmerican and Interstate Power and Light, the Iowa subsidiary of Alliant Energy) had no choice when small producers came to them asking for interconnection - they had to provide access to and buy the excess power from folks like the Sweckers. But, as Lynch points out, FERC could interpret the Energy Policy Act "in a way that relieves MidAmerican and Interstate Power of the obligation to purchase from [small producers]." In essence, Lynch says regulators' authority is "changing as we speak."

And that change is no less than a "huge concern" for small wind energy producers, says Rich Dana, an Iowa-based energy consultant for the Union of Concerned Scientists and a policy advocate for the Iowa Farmers Union and the Iowa Renewable Energy Association. If utilities have the right to tell small producers to take their power elsewhere, Dana worries it could have a further "chilling effect" on small-scale wind producers who already face formidable challenges in getting a fair deal. So, with a regulatory structure that many say provides few assurances, it's the responsibility of the landowner to toe the line and negotiate with their local REC or utility.

"That is, without question, one of the highest hurdles for a development to overcome, especially for an individual," Haman says. "There are no standards, if you will. MidAmerican and Interstate Power seem to have more of a grip on how to handle these kind of projects, but the RECs, they're so diverse from one co-op to another, that it's hard for people like myself to provide any direction [to farmers]. They simply have to go and negotiate with them."

Dana says that while the Sweckers' case is certainly the most pronounced, "people have disputes all over the place with co-ops trying to get a fair deal to hook up their machines." Heide's been in negotiation with his REC since he secured the tax credit last summer, and though he's specifically "staying away from the net metering issues," the ongoing discussions have been extensive.

"The REC's been fairly good to work with so far, but it seems like a long process," he says. "They're tough negotiators."

Haman says even a small producer in the best financial position - qualifying and obtaining the incentives from the USDA and the state's Alternative Energy Revolving Loan Program - needs to be looking for three cents per kilowatt if they want to "get by." But Wind says, that isn't, by any means, guaranteed.

"Generally, utilities are obligated to buy power from renewable resources, the only question is how much they're willing to pay for it," Wind explains. "Most utilities are willing to pay three cents, but some don't want to pay that much. MidAmerican's not willing to pay as much. Northwest Iowa Power Co-op offered to buy at about two cents per kilowatt. That's substantially less than what wind power goes for in the state. So farmers in the area of NIPCO or in MidAmerican service territory may be out of luck." (MidAmerican returned calls for input, but individuals with the appropriate knowledge were not available for comment.)

Ed Woolsey, a policy advocate and renewable energy entrepreneur who's been working in the area of wind development for the past 25 years, says that even as the technology evolved to make lenders confident in fronting the capital, utilities aren't as forthcoming about small producers' potential.
"The utility has to be agreeable to work with you in a fair manner, and, by fair, I mean they have to give a fair rate for the electricity," Woolsey says. "And that's been a problem."

In fact, it's a problem that Woolsey himself is dealing with right now. Working on community projects with two different groups of farmers in Southern Iowa, not to mention a wind project of his own, he's been negotiating for a fair price for more than a year. His assessment of the process: "past frustrating."

"Some RECs have some forward-thinking management, but the majority, they just want to go with the status quo, with what they're comfortable with," he says. "And most are comfortable with not doing anything."

Tyler McNeal thought he was going to make a fortune.

"I was going to be a millionaire by the time I was 30 years old," he says, only half-kidding. "I was telling people that."

It was the mid-1970s and McNeal, a Belmond native who ran the now-defunct Windway Technologies for more than a decade, was on the front lines of the nascent wind energy industry. Back then, McNeal says, the turbines were small, and the prevailing sentiment was that those promising a significant impact from wind generation were full of hot air. And, even more so than today, the utilities were fighting to keep them off the grid.

"Back at the very beginning, the RECs were fighting them," McNeal says of small wind energy producers. "When PURPA passed, we thought that would really help us. But nothing happened. Nobody ever held the RECs' or utilities', for that matter, feet to the fire."

But RECs and utilities argue that encouraging a production system with dozens, potentially hundreds of scattered power sources is playing with fire. And, if too many farmers try to grow their profits by harvesting the wind, it's consumers who will get burned.

Scott Drzycimski, spokesman for Alliant Energy and its Iowa subsidiary Interstate Power, says though Alliant serves 1 to 2 percent of all retail electric customers in the United States it purchases 7 to 8 percent of all wind power in the U.S. "But just because we're bullish on wind power," he specifies, "we need to be responsible on what we're willing to spend."

Responsible: it's the operative term when utilities and RECs talk about renewable energy. As Morrison, senior counsel for the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, explains, because RECs are "governed and owned by consumers" who charge administrators with keeping prices as low as possible, "we put renewable energy resources in among other potential options where it makes sense." And, quite frankly, if cheap power is the aim, Morrison says small producers of wind energy provide little bang for their buck.

"Wind makes sense, but it's a case-by-case issue," he says. "The economics on small wind turbines are much, much less favorable than large wind turbines - in the order of 10 times more expensive."

"There's a lot of interest at the farmer level and the agricultural level," he adds. "And a lot of folks are touting wind as the new cash crop for farmers. Well, our hope is that farmers will do their due diligence before they get too deeply invested. For some farmers, they'll find a way to take part in a large-scale wind farm and do quite well. Farmers can lease their land, or some are getting together as producer co-ops and putting turbines up on their farm as a common investment. Those are some of the ways in which farmers can make an economic investment. But others might be listening to the hype and may have, at this point, unrealistic expectations."

Alliant's Drzycimski echoes that sentiment.

"Really it's an issue of, is it in the best interest of the state to have dozens, hundreds of turbines spread out in different locations throughout the state where the wind profile isn't as good or transmission isn't as good, or put together wind farm projects where we're getting economies of scale," he says. "We understand that, while there may be benefits for the person who owns [a turbine], it's not in the overall interest of customers when we're going out and purchasing power that in many, or in most cases, is more expensive."

And when it comes to getting cheap power, rate-regulated utilities aren't shy about litigating their cases. According the David Lynch, general counsel for the Iowa Utilities Board, there were four cases addressing disputes between wind energy producers and rate-regulated utilities before the IUB in 2005, and all four involved the same parties - Midwest Renewable Energy Projects and Alliant's subsidiary Interstate Power. Midwest Renewable argued that the power from their proposed small-producer facility in Worth County should be valued at $47.65 per megawatt hour. Interstate said it was worth on $27.72 per megawatt hour. After a year of legal wrangling, the board ordered in December that Interstate pay $29 per megawatt hour.

But Wind points out that the "more expensive" rhetoric might be somewhat overstated. The key reason, he says, that wind is valued less highly than coal or natural gas is its intermittency (wind isn't constant), and its lack of controllability (the intensity can't be turned up or down on command). But while utilities argue that depresses the price they can pay small wind energy producers, Wind says studies show that "the fact that you can't control it does reduce its price, but typically that might be a half-cent per kilowatt hour."

And the argument that dispersed generation is inherently more expensive given economies of scale, doesn't entirely convince Woolsey. He sees the energy industry coming full circle: "We started back in the '30s and '40s with lots of small wind generators on farms, and then we developed a model of having just a handful of large generating facilities and transporting it to where it needed to go. Now, with the advent of micro-processor-controlled technology and continued declining cost of computer data control systems, the natural development of technology is coming to the point where we can have lot of smaller, local generation. It's kind of a natural progression. The hindrances are old policies that want to have a continuation of the status quo, where utility companies control all the generation and all the distribution."

And most agree that Iowans are ready to toss out those old policies, even if it hits them in the pocketbook. Denny Harding, business services administrator for the Iowa Farm Bureau, says their membership is very interested in encouraging local production; Sen. Houser says that over the past four years, he's watched support for renewable energy increase dramatically; and even Midland's Wieck says he's "familiar with various studies that show energy from renewable sources is growing in importance to members of cooperatives throughout Iowa." In fact, Ann Foster, spokeswoman for the Iowa Association of Electric Cooperatives, adds that in 2004 alone the state's RECs collected $33,806 in donations for their green pricing program, which is directed specifically at the development of renewable power sources.

But according to Foster, the association's most recent survey shows state RECs have interconnected "more than 30" consumer-owned generation units - for a market that covers a full 14 percent of Iowa's electric customers. And that number includes photovoltaic and methane projects, as well as wind. Alliant also has a green pricing program, but when asked how many independent producers the utility has connected, Drzycimski says (after speaking with other administrators) that he can't say specifically.

Which makes the Sweckers wonder, if their fellow REC members across the state are willing to open their wallet for renewable power, why don't the RECs make more of an effort to give such small producers a fair shake?

Blair Henry, a former lawyer and professor at the University of North Dakota who now heads the Northwest Council on Climate Change, has submitted legal briefs on the Sweckers' behalf, outlining his research which, he says "indicates that the willful and persistent abuse of the federal PURPA statute by the rural electric cooperatives (RECs) in Iowa is not limited to Iowa," but rather is "part of a much larger intentional, willful and deliberate abuse of federal law by rural electric cooperatives." And the reason for the resistance to the little guy, Henry suggests, is that the big players see the writing on the wall.

"They've been working very, very hard to get out from under these laws, and have been viciously nasty about it," Henry says of the requirement for utilities to purchase from small producers. "On the other hand, the cost of every other source of electricity is going up, and it's going to stay that way. Wind is going down and projected to keep going down. The fact is, wind has a huge future in front of it, and now that the utilities and everybody else are jockeying for position, they're trying to squeeze out the little guys."

Ed Woolsey has been in the land of the little guys. A place far, far away where wind energy is produced by thousands of citizens and community groups, where local ownership accounts for significant portions of the public's power needs. And while Iowa's large-scale utilities might call that Never Land, the rest of the world calls it Europe.

Twice in the past three years, Woolsey has traveled to countries leading the world in renewable energy production, eager to bring back ideas that could energize economic development and environmental progress in Iowa. He's been to Germany, where 100,000 individuals own 75 percent of the country's sizable wind energy production. He's been to Denmark, where wind supplies 25 percent of the country's energy needs and 80 percent of that capacity is held by individuals or local cooperatives. And when he's bent the ear of the policymakers, they've had few complaints about dispersed generation. In fact, quite the opposite.

"One of the things I was able to ask policymakers in Denmark and Holland was, if they had it to do over again, what would they do differently?" Woolsey recalls. "What they said was, 'Allow more local ownership.'"

And while the U.S. remains far behind such European counterparts, there are notable models this side of the Atlantic. That's why Heide thinks it's time to look to Iowa's neighbors to the north. "Minnesota's dealt with a lot of issues," he says. "But we've just really got a long ways to go in Iowa to streamline these projects." In addition to tax incentives for producers, Minnesota also has a price mandate, requiring its largest rate-regulated utility pay small producers a minimum of 3.3 cents per kilowatt. And many say it's thanks to that price mandate, that, according to the American Wind Energy Association, Minnesota has 60 community-owned projects, while Iowa has only eight.

"The Swecker case has been controversial for five-plus years because the utility is feeling like they're being mandated to do something that's not in their best interest, so they've fought it," Wind says. "It would be simpler if the state were to say, 'Here is a buy-back rate for wind generation projects of this size or smaller,' and maybe to placate the utility, to ease their fears of just getting way too much wind power, then we can say, 'you can limit the amount of wind power you buy to 10 percent of your energy needs.'"

And, while Wind and Woolsey both admit that mandates are a tough sell at the state capitol, Sen. Houser says equitable purchase agreements are already a subject of discussion.

"We're still having small producers having trouble getting power purchase agreements," he says. "Under federal law, utility companies are required to purchase this energy from non-utility generation, but it's the price that can be the problem. I don't know how quite to address that yet, but it's certainly going to be a continued, ongoing discussion."

In fact, last Thursday, Houser was meeting with officials from Texas, called upon to share insight on that state's nation-leading policies on small renewable energy producers. Not to mention, Houser adds, legislators are also planning on meeting with Minnesota officials in upcoming weeks to hear more about their pricing mandates and incentives. Houser says he's already seeing strong support around the Senate to renew and expand the current tax credit, and interest in addressing pricing issues. After all, he forecasts, "I think this next year will be critical."

This year could be critical for the Sweckers, as well. They're still awaiting another round with FERC after Midland filed for a rehearing on the net metering issue, and the Sweckers are pressing an appeal in Hamilton County District Court to compel the unyielding REC to finally pay them what their power is worth. And all the while, the days are ticking toward the expiration of the Sweckers two-year contract with Midland later this spring.

But while they were embarrassed by the publicity at the start, the Sweckers now say, with so many Iowans lining up to take advantage of their rural resources, the Dana farmers can't back down until their case sets a clear example.

"There's such an opportunity for farmers struggling out there," Bev says. "This isn't just for ourselves. This fight is to help everybody. And we're not just getting calls from farms in Iowa, but literally from across the country." CV

Comment on this story | Return to top