No CapX 2020

Today’s PUC meeting was about the narrow issue of whether the PUC should issue a variance from typical deadlines to give parties more time to address the “CapX 2020″ applicants’ request for delay of the in-service date for the Brookings line Certificate of Need.  And I mean NARROW, they don’t even want to think about requiring that CapX applicants comply with the Certificate of Need Order Point 4 that they disclose the transmission capacity and ownership and ownership structure for each of the projects.

You can see the meeting here - it’ll be posted soon, I hope, watch how quickly Chair Boyd ducks the capacity and ownership issue:

PUC Agenda Meeting Webcast Archives

Here’s some good news — in the Cannon Falls Beacon, a Letter to the Editor from Dr. Therese Zink:

To the Editor:

Nobody wants the CAPX2020 in their backyard, especially in Goodhue County where many property owners have smaller plots of land, such as mine, which is 20 acres. The 345 kV transmission line with their single shaft steel poles demanding 150 feet right-of-way, spaced 700 to 1000 feet apart, will be an eye sore, magnified when compared to the size of my parcel. What will that do to property values, not to mention aesthetics? We’ve seen reports that the electricity moving through the wires  impacts a farmer’s GPS system and my neighbor’s pacemaker. There are reports of getting shocked if you touch your metal shed. What will it do to electric fences, computers, internet and cell phone service? Not to mention the horses next door, my friend’s organic farm, or her several decade-old sledding hill and reflecting spot that will have  electric wires singing overhead.

The bottom-line is that Xcel Energy has not made its case that the power line is needed. Instead, many factors point the other way. Things have changed since Xcel did its forecasting in 2004-05. There are claims of growing needs in Rochester, of demand for the Elk Run development. There is claim of the  need to expand to assure reliability, and the rural folks can take the headache for the more populated areas, but has Xcel made their case?

According to Rochester Public Utilities’ annual report, demand peaked in 2006 and has fallen since. The same is true of Xcel, our largest utility. As to the reality of Elk Run: “A lot of people outside that group [the Elk Run developers] are watching right now because the project has been in the planning phases for so long that many say they won’t believe the project is real until they see a building.” (Rochester Post Bulletin 4/27/10). Part of the land is in foreclosure. If there is not increasing need and use, then guess whose rates will go up? You got it -you and me.

So…if we aren’t in a big hurry, can we do a better job of planning. I attended the Pine Island information meeting May 5. An astute citizen suggested that we do a better job of planning for the future. Minnesota doesn’t have an energy plan. Xcel, those behind the train that will run between the Twin Cities and Rochester, and those developing wind energy should all get together and do some joint planning so that energy and development targets the area where it’s needed, and the locals don’t get bothered about right of way issues for the different many projects one at a time.  “Can’t we coordinate these developments for the future?”  I thought that was a great idea.

My advice is that CAPX2020 be put on hold until there is a better job of planning for the energy and transportation needs of the future. Last week, CapX 2020 asked for a delay of the Brookings line, which is connected to the Hampton-Alma line through our county. This delay is a signal to pause, to plan. Let’s not carve up Goodhue County yet.

Therese Zink
Zumbrota

On June 10, 2010, at 9:30 a.m., FIRST ON THE AGENDA, CapX 2020’s Certificate of Need is on the agenda at the Public Utilities Commission.

Thursday, June 10, 2010 at 9:30 a.m.

Public Utilities Commission

121 - 7th Place East

3rd Floor - Large Hearing Room

St. Paul, Minnesota

The PUC will meet to address whether there will be a variance to the 45 day rule which requires that a decision be made within 45 days of a Notice that the inservice date for a project is delayed.

If you can’t be there, but want to catch the show, go to PUC June 10th Agenda page and click the blue “Watch Webcast” button.

For the full Certificate of Need docket filings, go to www.puc.state.mn.us and click “Search Documents” and search for 06-1115.

Staff Briefing Papers are now posted:

Staff Briefing Papers - June 10 PUC Meeting

Here’s the CapX 2020 Notice of Delay:

CapX Notice of Delay for Brookings In-Service Date

Here’s our response:

NoCapX 2020 & U-CAN Motion for Order to Show Cause

NoCapX & U-CAN Comment and Request for Hearing

And others:

MOES Comments

CETF - Comment Brookings CoN Delay & Request for Hearing

NAWO Comment

And NoCapX and U-CAN also filed these in various dockets in response to their announcement of delay:

NoCapX 2020 & U-CAN Comments - Rate Recovery Docket

In response to: Xcel’s Request for Reconsideration or Clarification (!)

NoCapX 2020 & U-CAN Motion for Order to Show Cause - Brookings & Hampton-Alma/LaX Routing Dockets

And because Xcel blames FERC: Motion to Intervene Out-of-Time - NoCapX & U-CAN

For NoCapX and U-CAN, the bottom line is, why should they get anything whatsoever out of the PUC, be it approval of a delayed in-service date, or cost recovery, when they have not complied with the PUC’s order to disclose the transmission capacity of each project, and the ownership of each and ownership structure?  EH?

TOO CLOSE!!!  Slapped together a Comment and Request for Hearing just now, whew, in under the wire, and just barely, in the CapX 2020 transmission Certificate of Need docket:

NoCapX & U-CAN Comment and Request for Hearing

MOES had filed their Comment:

MOES Comments

And this morning in that same docket I filed this Motion:

NoCapX 2020 & U-CAN Motion for Order to Show Cause

And then came the CETF Comment:

CETF - Comment Brookings CoN Delay & Request for Hearing

Busy day, eh?  Now it’s Xcel’s turn… errrrr… CapX 2020!

To see the whole docket, go to www.puc.state.mn.us and then “Search Dockets” for 06-1115.

Today NoCapX 2020 and United Citizen Action Network filed a Motion for Order to Show Cause, to push the PUC to require compliance with their Order way back when that the CapX 2020 Applicants disclose, which they have not done!

NoCapX 2020 & U-CAN Motion for Order to Show Cause

What haven’t they disclosed?  Here’s what the Order says:

4. Applicants shall make a compliance filing disclosing each project’s transmission capacity, owners, and ownership structure.

See for yourself in the Certificate of Need, at the very end, Order Point 4:

Order Granting Certificate of Need with Conditions

The PUC is considering CapX 2020’s Notice and Delay:

CapX Notice of Delay for Brookings In-Service Date

Here is is, more than a year later, and the CapX 2020 applicants have not responded to the PUC’s Order.  They have not disclosed the capacity of the various lines in the project and have not disclosed the owners and ownership structure.

ISN’T IT ABOUT TIME?

They’re applying for routing permits, they’re requesting AND GETTING rate recovery (with one important exception, the Brookings line), and they haven’t disclosed who will own this thing…  So NoCapX 2020 and U-CAN have asked that, whether or not this variance is issued, that the CapX 2020 Applicants be required to ‘fess up!

All -

We are in this CapX 2020 fight for a number of reasons, each of us has our self-interest, be it to protect our property, to preserve a favorite park or river, for the greater good or to help shift energy policy.  Today we’re at another of those pivotal points where what we do can make a difference in the outcome for the entire CapX 2020 Phase I project — there’s an open door…

Dollars are urgently needed TODAY for the fight to stop CapX 2020 in its tracks.  There’s a NoCapX 2020 PayPal link off to your right at the top of the page –>

… or checks made out to and sent directly to:

Legalectric
P.O. Box 176
Red Wing, MN  55066

A little goes a long way, and a lot goes even further!

Why today?  CapX 2020 has asked for a delay in the in-service date on the Brookings-Hampton part of Phase I, and that has an impact on not just Brookings, or the connected Hampton-Alma (LaCrosse) line, but the need for the entire project — their willingness to admit that the timing is off essentially admits that it is not needed — and that’s our challenge.  Right now, that door is open to file Motions in dockets to suspend and hopefully stop CapX 2020.

Keep an eye on www.nocapx2020 over the next few days for our filings and updates!

Thanks for your support,

Carol A. Overland
for
NoCapX 2020 and United Citizens Action Network

Remember all the hype about Rochester, home of the Mayo Clinic, freezing in the dark on a respirator without a job?

A little birdie sent me this:

Rochester Public Utilities 2009 Electric System Engineering & Operations Report

On p. 18 there’s some important info.  First, the number of customers has increased slightly:

And note that RPU’s peak demand was also in 2006 (I wish they’d go back a lot further):

From the CapX CoN docket, here’s testimony from Amanda King:

Here are the Rochester load specifics in chart form, substation by substation:

King - Schedule 2 - Rochester Substation Loading & Forecast

Here it is as Application, Appendix C-1, just slightly different:

Application-AppC-1_Map-of-Rochester-Area-Summer-Peak-Load-Information_2002-2020

Now look at this - the average MWH/customer:

Here’s some interesting information - their SAIDI, SAIFI and CAIDI reports — what changed in 2002 that dramatically altered the SAIDI statistics going forward:

CAIDI, SAIDI, SAIFI from RPU’s 2009 E&O Report

And the chart that says it all:

All in all, a very interesting report, clear, easy for non-wonks to understand, it’s got a good beat and you can dance to it, I’ll give it a 98!

UPDATE FROM SUZANNE ON THE CITIZEN ADVISORY TASK FORCES FOR CAPX 2020 HAMPTON-ALAM(LaX):

THE DEADLINE HAS BEEN EXTENDED!  PUT YOUR APPLICATIONS IN RIGHT AWAY!!!

ALERT: Hampton-Alma (LaCrosse) Citizens Advisory Task Force!

NOW - Do I have your attention?

Today is the day that people are supposed to receive notice of whether they are selected to be on the Hampton-Alma (LaCrosse) Citizen Advisory Task Force.  However, supposedly due to lack of response, the deadline has been extended indefinitely.   SEND IN YOUR APPLICATION RIGHT AWAY!

Task Force meetings begin the week of the 27th.

General Advisory Task Force Solicitation with Candidate Form

NOTE THERE’S AN APPLICATION FORM in the link above.

If you haven’t sent in a Candidate Form, now’s the time, like RIGHT NOW.  Ask that members of the public be appointed, and ask for equal membership for both Task Forces, there is NO reason to limit the River Crossing Task Force to 10 members.

Here are a couple of problems with this Solicitation:

• 15 members for Hampton to Northern Hills, only 10 members for Northern Hills to Mississippi River
• NO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, NO UNAFFILIATED PUBLIC ALLOWED
• Meetings will be held in the afternoon — who can do that?

So, again, this looks like an attempt to limit participation

And although the PUC has ordered the Task Forces, there is still no scheduled Prehearing Conference, at least not listed on the PUC docket site for this part of CapX 2020.

Well DUH, to transmit the unneeded coal-generated electricity to market to “displace natural gas.”

ICF - MISO Benefits Analysis Study

A storm is brewing over South Heart, North Dakota.  The South Heart coal plant and mine is in the news.

First the “benefication” plant, essentially drying out the wet lignite coal, almost exactly ONE YEAR AGO:

North Dakota Coal Dealt Setback

Great Northern Power Development withdrew its application for a new coal mine near South Heart, North Dakota. The company said it acted in response to a complaint filed at the North Dakota Public Service Commission by Plains Justice on behalf of Dakota Resource Council and local landowners. The complaint challenges the construction of a new coal preparation plant.

Now the coal plant — It was first touted as a “synfuels” plant (a la Beulah, argh, brilliant idea…) and now electricity, now that CapX 2020 permits are being approved.

Great Northern and Allied Syngas Stick with South Heart

South Heart is west of Dickinson, in the middle between the north and south CapX 2020 Dakota extensions:

Company seeks coal permit

Published March 31 2010

By: Ashley Martin, The Dickinson Press

A Houston company has taken another step toward their goal of constructing a $1.5 billion power plant and surface coal mine on 4,600 acres near South Heart.

South Heart Coal LLC, which is owned by Great Northern Power Development, applied for a mining permit Monday.

North Dakota’s Public Service Commission will review the application, said Jim Deutsch — director of PSC’s reclamation division.

It will take at least six months to process the application, he said.

“The application is for about 2.4 million tons of coal a year,” said Neal Messer, spokesperson for Great Northern.

Britt Huggins, whose home is just a few miles away from the proposed mine and plant, said the project makes her nervous.

“I have horses, I have dogs and I don’t so much like the idea of tearing up the countryside,” Huggins said. “Plus, what’s it going to do to our wildlife and our water?”

She is selling her home, but is having issues because it’s so close to the proposed mine.

“I’ve already had people look at it and say they’re worried about that coal mine,” Huggins said. “If it goes through, it’s going to change everybody’s way of life out there.”

The plant will be about six miles southwest of South Heart and the mine will be about three miles west of

the town, Messer said.

“It’s the biggest economic project in southwest North Dakota’s history,” Messer said.

Over 90 percent of the carbon dioxide emitted from the plant will be captured and used in other markets, Messer said. He added the company will comply with the Environmental Protection Agency’s standards.

“This plant will have no problem meeting or exceeding any of those standards,” Messer said.

The plant will use technology to gasify the coal and extract hydrogen, which will be used to generate 175 megawatts of electricity, Messer said. That’s enough to power 140,000 homes, he added.

Construction is set to begin in the fall of 2011 and they hope to be operational by 2014, Messer said. The project will create about 1,100 temporary jobs and 350 permanent jobs, Messer said.

Great Northern has also requested the land be rezoned from agricultural to industrial. The Stark County Zoning Board will hold a public hearing for the request Monday at 4 p.m.

The zoning board and Stark County commission approved the property to be rezoned about two years ago. However, a district judge overturned the decision because officials did not follow proper procedures.

Great Northern planned to produce synthetic natural gas two years ago, but changed their mind, Messer said.

“What happened was the natural gas market has deteriorated where that is not a profitable function at this point,” Messer said.

Messer expects Great Northern to apply for an air quality permit within the next few months.

Pete Kuntz, Stark County commissioner, said the project will be good for the area.

“We’ve got to look out for the majority of the people in the county, not only a few,” Kuntz said. “There’s way more people for than against.”

The coal would be mined by removing earth above the coal vein and stockpiling it, Messer said. Once the coal is removed, the earth will be replaced and put back to as close to its original state as possible, he added.

The mine would last about 30 years and the market will determine what happens to the plant after that, Messer said.

“If everything is the same as it is now, then they would go and try to find areas to expand,” Messer said.

GTL Energy USA Ltd. is constructing a coal beneficiation plant less than a half a mile away from Great Northern’s proposed project.

Messer, who is the spokesperson for Great Northern and GTL, said while they are two separate companies, Great Northern will use GTL Energy’s technology to make their plant more efficient.

It’s filed…

Appeal - NoCapX 2020 & U-CAN

CETF has appealed too, but I don’t have it electronically.

ONWARD!!! (to Susquehanna-Roseland Discovery, due today, AAAAARGH!)

… and thus the orchestrated train to remove conditions on the Brookings line was derailed.  Commissioner Phyllis Reha, the one who had given a presentation in 2006 saying CapX 2020 was a good model for the rest of the country (!!), was the conductor, speaking from notes, putting the Conditions on the table, they invited Steve Rakow, Commerce, to argue Commerce position, essentially testify, and going beyond the record, and there was the most tortured discussion of “oh, we don’t want to go beyond the record,” and “it’s good we didn’t go further,” it was most unfortunate I’d left my waders at home, and then Marya White was invited up to close the sale.   So rather quickly, in a devious process, the train had left the station, fully loaded, was headed downhill, nearing the bottom when Marya White got carried away and I just couldn’t take any more.  I mean really, saying that the majority of the MISO queue is wind… to convince the Commissioners that there was no need for concern, that the Brookings line is for wind.  What utter bullshit.  Maybe in numbers, but as MTEP-07 notes, with a cute and very graphic chart and WHICH I HAD USED IN MY BRIEF, and which they state very clearly in the narrative, the MISO queue is “predominately” coal.   PREDOMINATLEY coal, that is the word they use.

MTEP-07 October 4, 2007 Final

Don’t do that around me — I hate it when people grossly misrepresent reality.  So she was loudly and specifically challenged, and suddenly it was time for the pre-announced noon break.  Afterwards, it was a whole different tone and the train to remove conditions was long gone, and for some reason, Marya White did not come back up to the table.

And as I said yesterday, I don’t believe in conditions, will not argue for conditions, because conditions presume the line, and our (NoCapX 2020 and U-CAN) position is NO LINE.  Paula Maccabee, representing Citizens Energy Task Force, said on the record that she represented landowners on the Brookings line, and that landowners had “acquiesced” with conditions that assured it was for a “higher purpose.”  Oh my…do THEY know that?  EEEEEUW, that was disturbing — landowners I represent on the Brookings line would be awfully pissed off to hear that!!!  Landowners I represent certainly have not acquiesced, do not approve of conditions, do not think transmission through their property is OK if for a “higher purpose.”  I wonder if the CETF members on the Brookings line know they have acquiesced to transmission.  And I wonder if they understand the impact that even the perception of their acquiesence has on the rest of the landowners on the Brookings line.  It certainly is a statement against the interests of NoCapX 2020 and U-CAN and many landowners the length of the Brookings line.

So for that reason, I had mixed feelings about derailing the “remove conditions” train, but I could not condone the misrepresentations or the process by which they were removing the conditions, hence… OBJECTION!

The PUC meeting yesterday was… well, it’s over, thankfully.  The Motions for Reconsideration of Xcel and MOES to remove the conditions on the Brookings line were accepted, it was Reconsidered, “a discussion was had,” and the conditions sort of remain, although slightly neutered (not enough for Xcel, I’d guess).  I’ll post the Order so we know precisely how it ends up.  All of the other motions, those of NoCapX 2020/U-CAN and CETF, were denied.

So now it’s off to the races — the Appellate Court.

Oh, and there was also a curious statement by… I believe Commissioner Pugh, about UMTDI, about wanting to see what the “Upper Midwest Governors’ Transmission group decides,”  something like that, using the word “Governors” for sure.  Who’s leading who here?  Who is making the decisions?  In whose interest?  Chair Boyd is a big part of that group, I believe a co-chair, and it’s transmission toady heaven, PRESUMING massive transmission is needed, purpose as I see it is to promote the JCSP massive transmission buildout agenda, and, per “CapX 2020 Comment,” transferring costs of this massive transmission buildout to those outside the UMTDI five-state area.  Promotional activities that presume transmisison in the absence of need… great idea…

Here’s my Comment to UMTDI last February:

Overland Comment