No CapX 2020

Utilities’ demand forecasts are getting closer to the truth, exposing the CapX 2020 demand forecast lies.

An example in point, from RPU’s blog post:

Draft Infrastructure Plan Update presented at the July 28th Board Meeting

Color me PISSED OFF!!!  Yes, I know, it’s nothing new, but I really hate it when these lies of “increasing demand” are conveniently exposed in new “updated” forecasts  — after the PUC denies multiple Motions for Reconsideration regarding decreased demand.  CapX 2020 depends on a three part claim of need, and claimed that Rochester had an URGENT need for electricity due to increasing demand and they needed CapX 2020 to get enough juice in the area.  Yes, DUH, we know that is not true.  We know the forecasts are inflated.  The CapX 2020 record already reflects that the claimed Rochester local demand was utter bullshit, that the claim did not take the new 161kV lines into consideration, that the claim did not take the planned 100MW “West Side” gas plant into consideration, and that the forecasts were overestimated…

And folks, here’s the proof, straight from the horse’s… errrr… mouth, yeah, that’s it:

Rochester Public Utilities 2009 Infrastructure Update (using 2006 data)

Click here for RPU’s page with its forecasting and planning reports.

And I’ve heard that Comments will be taken on this, now’s your chance — I’ll post an email to send Comments to soon:

Tony Benson

Infrastructure Planning Comment

Rochester Public Utilities

4000 East River Road N.E.

Rochester, MN  55906

or email to: tbenson@rpu.org

Here’s the old report — we’ll be comparing:

RPU 2005 Report (using 2005 data)

And why am I so pissed off, you may ask?

It’s simple.  Here’s a little chart to elucidate:

And where did these numbers come from?  From these charts in the RPU reports!  First, the 2005 RPU Report:

And for comparison, the 2009 RPU Report just released:

Thanks to a little birdie, I have another cute little chart from RPU’s annual report:

RPU Annual Report - 2008 “Thinking Global, Acting Local”

Note the 30+% decrease in Wholesale Sales?  Note the decreasing demand since 2007?  Sound familiar?

There’s even more in the 2009 MAPP Load & Capability Report.  In the MAPP L&C, check out the RPU pages starting on p. II-307, and see if that makes any sense to you.  It shows a lot lower demand numbers, it shows sales, but it doesn’t show purchases, and the numbers don’t add up to those in their own reports.  Their demand is mixed in with other nearby utilities and that must be where it is, but you’d think it would show up in purchases or sales…

So, looking at the new RPU report, yup, Rochester sure needs CapX 2020’s bundled and “double circuit ready” 345kV transmission line, eh?

How stupid do they think we are?  And of course they wait until our Motions for Reconsideration are rejected to release this information, and remember, it’s old information at that, the 2006 numbers are the last ones before demand started going down, so real forecasts, updated with “2007-present” information, will be a lot lower.

Send your comments to RPU, and I’ll have an email address posted as soon as I can find one:

Tony Benson

Infrastructure Planning Comment

Rochester Public Utilities

4000 East River Road N.E.

Rochester, MN  55906

or email to: tbenson@rpu.org

The Department of Commerce has issued the Scoping Document for the CapX 2020 Brookings line.

Commerce Scoping Decision - June 30, 2009

Look at this list of what’s outside the scope:

The “No Build” option is specifically excluded, and yet got zero serious attention in the “Environmental Report” for the Certificate of Need.  In the ER, they assumed applicants’ stated “need” and so dissed the “no build” saying it couldn’t meet all three types of need that applicants were claiming.  YEAH, SO???!!!???  And the PUC approves that lame excuse for environmental review of a project with this extreme level of impacts?

This whole siting docket is such utter bullshit.  If you recall, this is the docket where they had only two Citizen Advisory Task Force groups, despite interest across the line from east to west.  AND, this is the docket where both, not one, but BOTH, Citizen Advisory Task Force groups REFUSED to vote on route segments Commerce put before them — as I understand it, it was because of the way Commerce framed the “choices” so as not to be choices at all.  Unfortunately, I wasn’t there and, well, is it just me, or do the notes from the Task Force meetings refuse to come up for you too?

Minnesota River Crossings to New Prague Task Force Page

Lake Marion to Hampton Task Force Page

I’ll keep working on pulling those notes up from these pages in my spare time… SNORT!

Merry Xmas and a lump of coal for CapX 2020.  They’re in the South Metro section of the STrib today, as if it’s just a South Metro project — where’s the West Metro, North Metro, and Greater Minnesota reports?  I think that means it only goes into print version sent to certain “South Metro” areas, and this deserves much wider coverage. The article says response is “muted.”  Hmmmmm, muted by what?  There are two Intervenors in the Certificate of Need proceeding saying NO to CapX2020, NoCapX and U-CAN.  Time to let David Peterson know what you think about CapX 2020!

David Peterson, Star Tribune

612-673-4440

dapeterson [at] startribune.com

Anyway, here’s the article:

The inside line on the south metro power line

By DAVID PETERSON, Star Tribune

December 24, 2008

Thousands of landowners in the rural southern metro area are days away from learning whether their acreage is being eyed for the pathway of a huge new power line that will stretch from South Dakota to Dakota County. Here’s what to expect:

THE PROJECT

Eleven utility companies have banded together to ask the state of Minnesota for permission to run a 345-kilowatt electrical power line from Brookings, S.D., to the Hampton area of southern Dakota County. They say it’s needed to serve not only a growing population but one that is sucking up far more power than it ever has. “In 30 years we’ve gone from 30 percent of homes with air conditioners to 70 percent,” said Randy Fordice, a spokesman for the CapX 2020 group. “We’ve gone from no computers in the home to two or three.”

THE IMPACT

The companies say today’s power lines do not affect farming much at all: There’s a single slender pole, and farmers can plow right up to it. They are seeking to follow roadways and the like as much as possible to minimize the annoyance.

THE ROUTE

That is what is soon to be disclosed, triggering much more intense public interest. CapX officials up to now have only been talking about vague corridors, one through Scott County and the other through Rice and LeSueur. But soon about 3,000 landowners will get letters saying they’ve been picked. “A big challenge has been where to cross the Minnesota River,” said Craig Poorker of Great River Energy, who’s working on routing the line. “One option is near soon-to-be-abandoned sewer ponds near Le Sueur; and there’s a northerly one that follows an existing 69-kilovolt line near Belle Plaine. We’re required to look for existing crossings.”

THE PAYOFF

Some landowners will consider it a holiday gift of sorts: There is a one-time payment for a 150-foot-wide easement. The companies won’t give even a range of dollars, saying there are too many unknowns, including how much of a person’s land is affected.

THE TIMELINE

The companies will file a permit request by early January naming a specific route. There will be public meetings this winter. A judge will preside over preliminary proceedings, and the state’s Public Utilities Commission will hold hearings in mid-2009, issuing a decision by late next year or early 2010.

THE REACTION

So far, it’s muted. “We’ve been tracking this for the last couple of years,” said Scott County’s planning manager Brad Davis. “We are looking at the impacts, including how it will affect some existing and planned roads.” And closer to the scene? “I haven’t heard any complaints yet,” said Dick Klehr, a township supervisor in Belle Plaine township. “But no one knows exactly where it’s going. “It’s like when the pipeline went through for oil: Many were upset at first, but it was really just a few people working others up without knowing the full facts. The complaints turned to compliments once the thing got started. “I have no idea of the dollars involved, and that was true with the pipeline also. No one knew until the company met with farmers. It varied a lot, but it ended up being thousands per acre for some.”

TO LEARN MORE

The utilities involved in the so-called CapX 2020 project have an extensive website full of maps, photos and other background information at www.capx2020.com.

Questions to: brookingsinfo@CapX2020.com or 1-888-473-2279.

We know CapX 2020 isn’t for wind, even Tim Carlsgaard admits that he can’t say that it’s for wind…

Here are a couple of things that arrived in the inbox recently about this, a little light reading for a summer morning.

The first one is from my favorite utility toady, Ed Garvey, “Director and Acting Reliability Administrator” of the Minnesota Office of Energy Security. Garvey is the one who’s been interceding on the Mesaba Project and Big Stone transmission and who knows what else, and if his name is on it, that’s enough to put up my red flags… This one, well here it is:

Potential for and Barriers to State Interconnection Jurisdiction

It starts with a legal analysis, with a lead-in that’s factually incorrect and drawing conclusions about the cause of the MISO backlog of transmission interconnection requests, saying, really, dig this, “… much of which is due to a lack of sufficient existing transmission capability to support the explosion of wind-powered electric generation projects proposed in response to State policies…” Earth to Mars, folks, the backlog is due to the massive amounts of generation in queue and utility and developer desire for bulk power transfer, which is straining the system which is designed, a perfectly adequate system for serving local load and shifting power around during outages. There is a light at the end of the tunnel, and it is a train headed for Garvey and his absurd proposal — at the very end are the comments of Rick Gonzalez, who, though he’s usually on “the other side,” always tells it like it is:

There is only one power system. To suggest that there can be multiple “on-ramps” within the same geographic area, just at different voltage levels, each with different interconnection procedures, makes little sense… To carry the highway analogy one step further, there is a rather obvious reason why each car has only one steering wheel, and one set of pedals.

… to suggest that circumventing the MISO interconnection process will somehow allow for significant amounts of new generation to be reliably connected sooner, is wishful thinking. The fundamental problem is that we do not have adequate transmission system capability to accommodate most of the proposed or potential new generation, nor do we have agreement on how much capability we should be planning for, or when to implement it.

Making it easier to connect new generation in an essentially unsupervised manner outside of the organized interconnection process will not help; rather, it is an invitation to a “train wreck” type of situation with respect to system reliability, safety, and economy, and also is totally contrary to the chronological queue management concept mandated by FERC…

… In summary, the concept of having some sort of alternative interconnection process certainly has a certain allure to it, given the frustrating situation we’re in (and have created for ourselves with FERC’s help). However, the physical realities of the power system do not yield to legalistic arguments regarding jurisdiction. Since the challenge is primarily a technical one, it is unlikely the solution will be found in the legal field.

Yup, that about sums it up… It seems to me that what’s at issue here is that there’s a lot of coal waiting in queue, enough to gobble up any transmission added, i.e. CapX 2020, and wind is looking for a way to jump ahead of its place in queue. Am I missing something here?

Here’s another report that was in the Google Alerts today:

Optimizing Wind Transmission from Distant Wind Farms

This one I haven’t read yet… but here’s one punch line from p. 3:

Using current estimates of the cost of a wind turbine and the cost of a transmission line, we estimate that the cost of delivered power from a wind farm with about 33% capacity that is locate (sic) 1,000 miles from the customer will be about $150/MWh with almost 2/3 of the cost due to transmission. This cost does not include measures to solve the moment to moment variability of wind turbine output or the intermittency of output.

Seems to me that this is saying that it makes no economic sense to transmit wind over long distances. yeah, tell me something new…

More maps were filed when the Dept. of Commerce, or is it MOES, filed the Environmental Report. Here’s a link for the maps:

Environmental Report - Maps

Environmental Report

Read it and weep… naaaaaah, read it and wonder why they bother.

The most recent release in the Most Disappointing Documents category is the “Environmental Report” for the CapX 2020 transmission project. It’s out now, so John Bailey was kind enough to say… knowing the response I’d have… YAWN!!! And it’s from our good friends at the Dept. of Commerce.

Drumroll please… HERE IT IS:

environmental-report

Environmental Report - Maps

Yawn… zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

And if you can get the Maps to open up, do let me know your secret!

There’s a study I want to get in front of all of you interested in CapX — I just realized I had only posted it on Legalectric, with just a mention of it here, and it’s something that needs a bit of attention. It’s a South Dakota Energy Infrastructure Authority (SDEIA) study, by Robert Schulte. Schulte is now Schulte & Ass, LLP, but he’s a former Excelsior Energy toadie who got out while the going was good, and he got the contract to look at new generation and markets in South Dakota. What’s good about it is that he specifically addresses the lack of market and that SD shouldn’t be getting into the transmission business and if they want to get into generation, they’d first better make damn sure they’ve got a market. Yeah, that’s my kind of study in light of the unreasonable and unsubstantiated claims of need on the part of yahoos wanting to build generation in the Dakotas!

SDEIA Energy Study - Schulte

The focus is on coal and nuclear generation, both of which are mega-costly and not exactly “prudent” expenditures:

The SDEIA published an Electric Industry Interviews Report in December 2006. That report observed that efforts by state government to promote greater exports of electric power would require production plant additions, mitigation of transmission line constraints and the identification of customers willing to purchase the energy made in South Dakota. This new Report confirms the same findings; but gives greater visibility to the very large dollar investments that will be required of anyone seeking to license and construct new electric generating facilities – coal, nuclear or wind - anywhere on the Great Plains.

His map of coal railroad lines (p. 17) leaves out the one that I ran next to each trip out to CA and back in the bleary-eyed old days when I was a meat/produce hauler, it was Powder River coal coming across Wyoming into South Dakota into Minnesota, and I’d see trains full of coal next to the highway from Orin Jct. into South Dakota. They did a major rebuild of the tracks back when I was driving, so probably late 80s, and it’s nonstop coal trains — why isn’t it on his map, particularly if this is supposed to be a South Dakota focused study? Hmmmmm… A 10 second search revealed this map, rail lines of DM&E and IC&E:

OK, so that’s a major omission. But anyway, on page 18, he notes limitations for coal construction. This is good news, but with the omission of the coal rail lines that I’ve seen with my own bleary eyes, it raises questions. ????? Then he lists the CURRENT projects (by no means all those in the MISO queue):

2.6.1 Supercritical, Pulverized Coal, Steam Boilers, Pending Projects
Current projects in the region involving pulverized coal are:

• Big Stone II, South Dakota
• Westin 4, Wisconsin
• Nebraska City 2, Nebraska
• Whalen Energy Center, Nebraska
• Council Bluffs 4, Iowa

2.6.2 IGCC Pending Projects
Public and private interests are proceeding with planning and development of the
following IGCC projects in the region:

• Mesaba Energy Project, Excelsior Energy, Minnesota
• Basin Electric Cooperative IGCC Project, North or South Dakota

Big Stone may be in trouble, WestOn moves on, coal is in trouble in Nebraska, and Council Bluffs went up like an elevator, Mesaba is going down like cod liver oil gagging all the way, and Basin has just been proposed, the “Selby NextGen” HERE on NoCapX, so as you can see, it’s a very mixed bag.

Here are all the coal projects, ALL the projects in the MISO queue. As of December 4, 2007:

MISO queue Dec 4 2007

There’s about 3,000MW of coal in SD, 2,000 in ND, 3,200 in IA, and 1,800 in Wisconsin, and 5,000MW in Illinois. And that goes to “market” and explains why SD coal hasn’t got a market to go to! Can’t see any reason Illinois would want to buy coal from SD when they’ve got plenty already there and plenty more on the drawing board.

The same is true with wind. Look at the MISO queue. There’s over 14,000 MW of wind in Illinois on the MISO queue. Why would Illinois want to buy wind from SD when they’ve got so much of their own going up? 14,000 MW — that’s more than is planned

This report deals with market — read it and wonder.

The thing this study says that I really appreciate, other than that they’d better identify a market before spending massive amounts on generation and transmission infrastructure, is his finding on relative cost of generation scenarios:

Wind/Gas combo… now what I want to see is CURRENT cost figures, because IGCC, we know from Mesaba is $96-104 in 2005, not his low numbers, and we know that SCPC is in the 70s from Big Stone:

So what will it take to get some current numbers on all of this?

And looking at need for CapX, looking at the MISO queue, looking at generation all over, whatever is their justification?

Go through the Information Requests (posted HERE) and see what they have to say, and wonder…

Thought occurs to me that it’d be useful to have the Interrogatories so anyone who wants to know what’s being asked can have a look-see. SO, here they are - as I get answers, I’ll post those too, but as of right now, it’s all questions…

And slowly, I’m adding answers now.

FYI, John Baily has been busy, CLICK HERE FOR ILSR.ORG’S CAPX SITE!

COMMERCE

Ham-03-03-08

Rakow-02-20-08-IR40

Pierce-01-22-08-IR41-42

Rakow-02-20-08-IR43-44

Pierce-03-03-08 IR49-58

Shaw 3-21-08 IR60

NAWO/ILSR

NAWO/ILSR Corrected 7

NAWO/ILSR IR8

NAWO/ILSR IR9

NAWO/ILSR IR10

NAWO/ILSR IR11

NAWO/ILSR IR12

NAWO/ILSR IR13

NAWO/ILSR IR14

NO CAPX 2020 (more after I get up to date)

Data Practices Act Request - way old

NO CAPX IR 1

XCEL RESPONSES TO VARIOUS PARTIES

Xcel Response to Commerce 1-32

Xcel Response to Commerce 33&36

Xcel Response to Commerce 37-38

Xcel Response to Commerce 39

Xcel Response to Commerce 41

Xcel Response to Commerce 42

Xcel Response to Commerce 43

Xcel Response to Commerce 49

Xcel Response to Commerce 50

Xcel Response to Commerce 51

Xcel Response to Commerce 52

Xcel Response to Commerce 53

Xcel Response to Commerce 54

Xcel Response to Commerce 55

Xcel Response to Commerce 57

Xcel Response to NAWO 2-6

Xcel Response to WOW 1-2

Looking at the PUC docket for 06-1115, I can see that the other two dockets (06-979 and 06-857) have not been incorporated into this one yet.  I’d sent an email asking if this could be done informally, and it seems that ain’t gonna happen… OK, fine, there’s got to be a way…

Once more with feeling, to look at dockets:

Go to www. puc.state.mn.us

Click on “eDockets”

Click on “Search Documents”

Search for dockets 06-1115 or 06-979 or 06-857

Happy reading…

Above - Here’s where MAPP’s going… the Cone of Silence.

MAPP’s NM-SPG is the “local” transmission proving ground, or vetting ground, where utilities bring their transmission proposals to the engineers who test it and give it thumbs up or thumbs down and then pass it on to MISO (Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator). Transmission planning is supposed to be a relatively transparent process, and the MAPP NM-SPG meetings are open to the public. I enjoy these meetings immensely and wish I could get to them more often. They’re typically held in Elk River at the Great River Energy HQ, and that’s a bit of a jaunt for me to be there by 8:30 or 9! Since I’ve been going, they’ve been facilitated by Mike Steckelberg of GRE, who does a good job of orchestrating the meetings, making sure all the supporting stuff is there, keeping things on track, and he’s helped open up the process.

I get the feeling that an open process is not appreciated by some, because it opens up the utility workings to daylight, and then some of us who can understand what’s going on get what’s going on. The utilities get something out of it too, though, because public input can save them a lot of hassle. For example, for a while they were considering a big line from Prairie Island to LaCrosse, upgrading an existing 69kV on the west side of the Mississippi. What they hadn’t considered was that the 69kV line went across “site P” in Florence, where they wanted to put nuclear waste a decade ago, and DUH! I’m guessing that Florence Township probably wouldn’t like a big honkin’ transmission line through the township, and that Mississippi Jewel wouldn’t want a 345kV line through their pricey golf course community (since sold at auction, no market…) and they could probably put up quite a stink. And lo and behold, after being reminded of that (and who knows what other considerations) they dropped that idea and instead are diverting the line to Rochester in the SE Minnesota line in CapX. They also had called the CapX lines the “SW Minnesota to Prairie Island” and the “Prairie Island to LaCrosse” and Prairie Island Indian Community and City of Red Wing got the word and started showing up at transmission meetings and they suddenly started calling it “Hampton Corners” instead of “Prairie Island” as start and terminus points If they had gone forward with either of those ideas, there’d be uproar and through a more public process, they avoided that, perhaps (depending on what they do ultimately).

But (drumroll) a little birdie told me that we’re in for some change, they’ve been talking about it for a while and now it’s becoming an unreal reality. MAPP’s CEII joins HSA and TSA, oh Dog, give me a break…

So from the little birdie, here’s the poop:

A part of that more open process is that anyone attending gets handouts, donuts & coffee, and gets the studies, and so that’s how I got the Mesaba studies and handouts that were so damning. And all this notice about CapX plans, as it’s been building for years. And I don’t think they like having their trajectory so obvious. Hence the Critical Energy Infrastructure Information (CEII) “Cone of Silence.” It’s come down from FERC, conveniently at a time where the feds have declared and are wanting to utilize “National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors,” and where question need is becoming a “terrorist activity.” I really don’t like where this is going…

Here’s their plan for the Cone of Silence, out there for the world to see on their site, MAPP Policies, a Non-Disclosure Agreement, and their “Critical Energy Infrastructure Information Policy” of secrecy:

MAPP CEII Policy link

MAPP CEII Policy download

MAPP CEII Non-Disclosure link

MAPP CEII Non-Disclosure download

So who’s to say whether something is “Critical Energy Infrastructure Information?”  Here is the guideline:

CEII is specific engineering, vulnerability, or detailed design information about
proposed or existing critical infrastructure (physical or virtual) that:

1. Relates details about the production, generation, transmission, or
distribution of energy;
2. Could be useful to a person planning an attack on critical infrastructure;
3. Is exempt from mandatory disclosure under the Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552 (2000);; and
4. Does not simply give the general location of the critical infrastructure.

So how will this be determined?  What’s the mechanism for challenge if something is deemed CEII?  Why do I reflexively roll my eyeballs and sigh?

Here they are, at a MAPP NM-SPG meeting a while ago, and yes, that’s Excelsior’s Steve Sherner in the foreground on the right.  Can you spot the terrorist in this room:

What a bunch of crap, but hey, can’t have the public knowing what they’re planning, now, can we… It’s exciting stuff, and I’d just as soon tape it and put it on public access, but then again, people like Beth Soholt call it “watching paint dry.” I think it’s hilarious, particularly when electrical engineers argue! Like watching Norwegians argue, you have to pay attention to notice it, have to know the subtexts, and it sets out some big issues, like the implications of utilities being held accountable for their share of the reactive power.

I wish I could go just to challenge this, I mean really, what’s going to be classified as classified? They already made the transmission map top secret, HELLO, folks, all you have to do to find a transmission line is drive around, it’s not like utilities are undergrounding… I know, I said it before, but GIVE ME A BREAK!!!