From: Jim.Burg@state.sd.us [mailto:Jim.Burg@state.sd.us]
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 3:13 PM
To: Hadjy, Pandor
Subject: FW: Comments on Implementation of Section 9006 of Farm Security
and Rural Investment Act of 2002


-----Original Message-----
From: Burg, Jim 
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 2:06 PM
To: pandor.hadgy@usda.gov
Subject: Comments on Implementation of Section 9006 of Farm Security and
Rural Investment Act of 2002


Thank you for the opportunity to comment on implementation rules for section
9006. I participated in the development of and fully endorse the comments
that were submitted and the oral testimony presented on December 4th by the
Environmental and Law and Policy Center.

Additionally I would encourage giving preference to those projects which
enhance or compliment other rural and agriculture projects. For example:
Wind is rapidly developing into a source of rural energy as well as
agriculture economic development. However wind is available on the average
30% of the time and is not considered a dispatchable resource. Other
renewable energy sources which could firm wind generation or provide a more
dispatch able energy source would greatly increase the value of wind
development as well as the supplemental renewable resource. Resources like
"biomass" energy, "anaerobic digester gas" for electric generation and solar
and hydrogen as well as storage techniques could greatly enhance the wind
resource and thus increase the value or agriculture energy production. 

I would also add that I support a preference to loan guarantees over grants
because the will make the limited resources support so many more projects.

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment.

Jim Burg, chair
South Dakota Public Utilities Commission