No CapX 2020

Hot off the press, more responses to my Data Practices Act request about Citizen Advisory Task Forces. So, starting from the beginning, here are the requests I’d sent:

Task Force Data Practices Act - 1

Task Force Data Practices Act - 2

Here is the response Friday:

Advisory Task Forces - Web-based information 2002-2010

And here’s what came in first thing this morning:

Advisory Task Forces I-drive Information 1995-2002

Citizen Advisory Committees - Table

Now, it’s time to take a look at this!

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!

Just now, I’ve filed a Motion to Strike the Applicant’s “Comment” filed at the close of business February 8, 2010, the deadline.  Why?  Because they’re filing 3/4″ of stuff at the very end of everything, there’s no way to do Discovery, there’s no way to cross them, and what really did it for me was the graphic “birds-eye view” of transmission blowout.  Look at this and play “What’s wrong with this picture?”

Can’t see it?  Try this, and you can blow it up all you want:

CapX - Feb 8 - Attachment 4

This was an issue in Susquehanna-Roseland, with even wider blowout range, due to the much longer ruling span:

PSEG Blowout Chart

In their filing, they go on about:

A.    Minnesota River Crossings
B.    Route Width
C.    Myrick Alignment Alternative, Bimeda, Inc.
D.    MNDOT Right-of-Way
E.    Sky Harbor Airpark
F.    Kruger Property
G.    Right-of-Way for Lyon County – Minnesota Valley 115kV Line
H.    Installation of Second Set of Davit Arms
I.    Fiber Optic Cable in Shield Wire
J.    Insulin Pumps
K.    Buffalo Herds
L.    Honeybees

And the problem, as I see it, is that there’s so much here that they’ve known for a long time and haven’t disclosed, and instead they kept up the fiction, through the public hearings, through the evidentiary hearings, that the LeSueur Crossing was the “Modified Preferred” route when, instead, there were clearly identified problems that would rule out that crossing, and the Belle Plaine crossing, as the “alternate” didn’t get the attention it needed when attention was misfocused on LeSueur.  There was not a public hearing in Belle Plaine, and there was no EIS “meeting” (they’re not hearings anymore) in Belle Plaine.  So, folks… what’s wrong with this picture…

Applicants’ “Comment” Letter

Attachment 1 - 1a of 3

Attachment 1 - 1b of 3

Attachment 1 - 2 of 3

Attachment 1 - 3a of 3

Attachment 1 - 3b of 3

(2 is missing, I have to break it down to upload it — later!)

(3 is missing, I have to break it down to upload it — later!)

Attachment 4 - Birds-eye View

Attachment 5 - Valberg on Honeybees

I’m weawwy weawwy tired of these utilities thinking they can just dump whatever they’ve got at the last minute , that they can withhold information developed in meetings with agencies, that they know that there’s a problem and they don’t disclose… that is sooooo naughty.

Produce maps at the hearings, “supplemental” testimony, on and on and on… PSEG’s no different, these guys all operate from the same playbook.

Just couldn’t let this last one slide…

ANSWER: What’s wrong with the above “birds-eye” graphic is that their measurements of blowout start from the centerline, and not the point where the transmission line is actually connected — so their numbers are shy by about 20 feet…

The final EIS for the Brookings-Hampton CapX 2020 route has been released:

FEIS Notice - CapX 2020 Brookings-Hampton

We have until February 8 to file Public Comments.

Send comments on the FEIS and anything else to the judge:

Judge Richard C. Luis

Office of Administrative Hearings

P.O. Box 64620

St. Paul, MN
55164-0620

fax 651-361-7936

e-mail capx.oah.state.mn.us

I’m reading through the record, prepping for the next two weeks of hearings, and found this delightful tidbit that Craig Poorker had forwarded to Scott Ek regarding utility infrastructure found near New Trier - and I’ll testify about that infrastructure because I saw it too…

TOILET ON A STICK!!!

And part of the Comment:

Last night, Rep. Steve Drazkowski and Rep. Tim Kelly (who wasn’t there!) hosted a meeting about CapX 2o2o (you’ll find this post on Legalectric too, because there’s a lot more than CapX 2020 going on here).

But Rep. Randy Demmer, 29A was there, and as one person said, he had a “deer in the headlights” look as he sat in the front of the room.  I’d talked with him a bit when he came in, and he said he hadn’t heard from many constituents about CapX… oh… OK, well, we can do something about that!

Short version of the meeting:

• Bill Glahn gets roasted for MOES “Minnesota_Resource_Assessment” report, which is utter crap.

• PUC, Commerce, and DOT show up en mass and toady for process and project.

• Rep. Drazkowski utters words of placation, but did not promote Nov. 4 joint committee hearing on repeal of Minn. Stat. 117.19.  HE’S ON ONE OF THE COMMITTEES, EARTH TO MARS!!!

• Affected landowners don’t buy it,  they get that fundamentally CapX 2020 is not needed and are pissed-off at the crap (see above).

There were two things I let slide, can’t take on everything:

1.Their statements about Big Stone were odd, theywell
knows that Big Stone could not interconnect without CapX, and I have
the electrical studies which prove it, which after trying 5 times to
make it work with a line to nowhere (Granite Falls) then assumed CapX
in try #6…   But I also wonder whether CapX Brookings (hence all of
CapX) can go forward without Big Stone.

2. They kept saying “this is all about local load” and
denying the LaX to Mad line, and kept talking about Rochester as the
driver, yet they did not note, of course, the new gas plant at West
Side sub or the four 161kV lines that are planned.

Overland’s Scorecard (concept stolen from Deb!):

CapX:     0
PUC:     -5
DOT:       1
Commerce:   -4
The People: +1

Longer version, bigger photo:

The people did a good job of expressing their displeasure and disbelief.

Bill Glahn brought up the Minnesota Resource Assessment Survey!  Bad move…  He  got one of my awards for that Minnesota Resource Assessment Survey, and here’s Maccabee - Presentation to LEC 10/23/09 , another voice saying it’s outrageous.  Last night  Alan Muller got him good about it, told him” it was  an unsatisfactory report, basically just a regurgitation of the business plans of MN… no independent thinking and not in the interests of the citizens of Minnesota …”  Alan does have a way with words.  When asked for a response Glahn looked abashed and admitted that he knows many people are unhappy with it.  AS WELL HE SHOULD!  I mean really… to use as an example that phony “chart” of Steve Rakow’s on p. 6:

… with no ID of meaning of X or Y axis, it’s deceitful, but they pulled that in CapX when faced with decreased demand, entering this chart, then citing its entry in the CapX 2020 Certificate of need record as if it means something.  Oh, pleeeeeeeeze…  We’re way below the 2004 actuals, and this forecast, for the Blue Lake expansion, it’s CapX 2020 era forecasts, we’re about 1,500MW down and growing, down 15% so far, down 2.5% in 1&2Q 2009, SEC 3Q filing and investor call due any second now will take it down further:

After last night’s meeting, Bill Glahn is certainly under fire, but I also got the feeling due to the cadre of state employees stumping for CapX, that it’s their perception that it’s in trouble.  It could be something as simple as they have no financing to do it, that demand is so far down that it makes no sense even to PUC and applicants to build it, or …  The DOT was distancing itself, there’s been a lot of pressure on DOT.  The DOT has its “Policy of Accomodation” (at issue in Chisago Transmission Project III, or IV, the last round, where Xcel stuck poles, BIG poles, right in the middle of the new plan for US Hwy. 8, in one example, right next to and over a business), and here it is:

DOT Policy on Utility Accomodation

…and I don’t think they’re going to change that anytime soon.  At the Legislative Energy Commission meeting in September, there was mention of an October 13 meeting with the DOT, but Dave Sykora, DOT, mentioned that was cancelled, and instead they met last week.  There were no specifics disclosed, but the feeling I got from what was said was that it didn’t go the way legislators wanted it to, DOT didn’t cave.  Legislators are looking, from Rep. Drazkowski’s statements last night, and from Rep. Westrom’s comments at the LEC meeting, for a way to do the project with minimal landowner pain.  I don’t think that’s doable, and it’s sure not desirable.   CapX 2020 is a project that shouldn’t be built, and if it is, it will cause considerable pain, for landowners, applicants and legislators!

Also noteworthy last night was the general failure to accept “need” and a high level of understanding, and for the most part, people are getting the broader picture.  (there was an odd comment by Burl Haar that if there were questions about the appeal of the CapX decision, that they post most things on the docket, and to check with him!).  So is the PUC’s argument that this belongs at the District Court, and not the Appellate Court (despite what Cupit says) on display in the docket for the world to see?  I doubt it, but I’ll check.

Last night, Drazkowski kept referring to efforts to alter the eminent domain law, but he was evasive and didn’t disclose important info, like the upcoming November 4 hearing before Energy & Civil Justice (he’s on Civil Justice!) (Upcoming hearing on repeal of eminent domain exemptions), and he didn’t advise on how to advocate for change, dropped the ball, wouldn’t even pick it up.

Here’s the info on the hearing:

WEDNESDAY, November 4, 2009
10:00 AM
Joint Meeting of the Energy Finance & Policy Division and Civil Justice Committee
Room: 5 State Office Building
Chairs: Rep. Bill Hilty, Rep. Joe Mullery
Agenda: Informational hearing on HF1182 (Bly) Public service corporation exemptions repealed.

Anyone wishing to testify should contact Andy Pomroy at andy.pomroy [at] house.mn
Last night’s meeting in Mazeppa on CapX 2020  follows on the heels of one last Monday night in Chisago, about an 855MW gas plant proposed by LS Power, the Sunrise River Energy Station.  Click here for  Report on Monday Chisago meeting.  They’ve  proposed at least three gas plants before at that site, and they didn’t go far, this is the biggest, and most public, and will need mega transmission, BUT LS Power’s Blake Wheatley admitted at the Chisago meeting that they don’t have a plan, don’t have a PPA, don’t have anything but a tax exemption (est. $9-10 million) from legislators who should have known better than to sell out their constituents for nothing, and then after being caught, for a very small “Host Fee.”  At that meeting, Mike Bull said Xcel won’t need any power for a long time, 2016-2017 (and if he’ll admit that at long last, we know it’s really a lot further out).  As with last night’s meeting, at the Chisago meeting there was, despite heavy lobbying and presence of unions like IBEW and Building & Trades, a clear understanding that the LS Power plant is not needed, and that peak demand is down.  Granted LS Power made the mistake of walking into an energy educated community, but even Bob Cupit was surpirsed by the turnout, said he’d never seen such a large crowd, ~500, standing room only in a hockey rink sized room (Also, FYI, Bob stated to the audience that “If citizens feel the system still failed to consider issues, the decision of the PUC can be appealed to the state Court of Appeals.“)

There is a theme.  Minnesota doesn’t need more transmission, and we won’t, in the words of Xcel’s Mikey Bull, need an generation anytime soon.  Am I paraphrasing correctly, Mike? (Duck & cover — the You Tube of that is forthcoming!!!)  The MOES Minnesota_Resource_Assessment is a crock.

Here are the LEC members — it’d be good to contact all of them, and let them know what you think about “need” for generation and transmission, decreasing demand, and CapX 2020 in particular:

http://www.commissions.leg.state.mn.us/lec/members.htm
Here’s Senate member info:
http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/members/index.php?ls=#header
Here’s House member info:
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/members/hmem.asp

And about CapX and eminent domain, contact:

rep.steve.drazkowski [at] house.mn

rep.tim.kelly [at] house.mn

rep. randy.demmer [at] house.mn

Once more with feeling — Get thee to the House Energy and Judiciary Committee meeting:

WEDNESDAY, November 4, 2009
10:00 AM
Joint Meeting of the Energy Finance & Policy Division and Civil Justice Committee
Room: 5 State Office Building
Chairs: Rep. Bill Hilty, Rep. Joe Mullery
Agenda: Informational hearing on HF1182 (Bly) Public service corporation exemptions repealed.

Clear off your calendar and get ready for this week’s assignment — the CapX Brookings EIS.
We’ve got a while to review it and comment, but it is a job we MUST do and it’s not fun and it’s tedious and infuriating beyond belief, SO, LET’S GET TO IT!

Here’s the link:

BROOKINGS DRAFT EIS

Start writing down your comments, what’s missing, gather supporting documents to back up your comments…

Public meetings begin next month (notice it’s public MEETINGS and not public HEARINGS?!?!):

PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING DATES & LOCATIONS

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

Here’s the official poop from Stephanie Strength, USDA’s RUS:

When the deadline falls on a weekend, comments will be accepted postmarked the following business day or emailed through midnight of that day. In this case that would be Monday July 27, 2009. That said, it generally takes at least a month to prepare the scoping report and comments coming in past the close of the comment period will be incorporated as much as is practicable. Comments not considered in the scoping report will be carried forward into the public comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

That means your comments will be accepted if you:

• email 11:59 p.m. Saturday, July 25th (why a Saturday deadline?)

email by 11:59 p.m. Saturday to: stephanie.strength@usda.gov

• Mail and have POSTMARKED sometime on Monday

Mail, postmarked no later than Monday, to:

Stephanie Strength

Environmental Protection Specialist

USDA, Rural Utilities Service

Engineering and Environmental Staff

1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Stop 1571

Washington, DC 20250-1571

It seems that comments after the deadline may also be incorporated, but it’s not certain.  Sooooo… get them in.

That said, I’ve been nosing around on the internet again, and am finding some interesting tidbits, like this one going way back, showing the intent of CapX as an integrated unit:

Legislative Electric Energy Task Force - Utility Perspective - Sept. 14, 2004

And then there’s the Cerificate of Need Scoping Decision for the “Environmental Report” that side-stepped joint environmental review with the RUS by flat out lying about the potential for RUS EIS:

CoN Environmental Report - Scope

Hmmmmm… what happened to their Engineer?

Transmission Line Principal Engineer

Posted by: Xcel Energy <amanda.l.sirek@xcelenergy.com> on May 06, 2009 at 13:11:10.

Contract / Temp to Perm / Permanent: Permanent
City: Minneapolis or EauClaire
Country: United States

A Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering or Civil Engineering from an ABET accredited curriculum, or equivalent, plus appropriate continuing education is required for this position. It is expected that one of the primary responsibility of this position will be involvement in the CAPX 2020 series of projects. CAPX2020 is a joint initiative of 11 transmission-owning utilities in Minnesota and the surrounding region that are to expand the high voltage electric transmission grid (nearly 650 Miles of new 345kV transmission lines) to ensure continued reliable service (www.capx2020.com). Engineering Involvement in this project would include; permitting support, creating detailed scopes, engineering calculations, detailed design drawings, Modeling in PLS CADD, material specification & requisitions, estimating, construction support, overall project coordination and scheduling. This position also requires occasional on call duties and after hours response. Other core responsibilities are to provide engineering and design for the construction of transmission lines in Minnesota, Wisconsin, N. Dakota, S. Dakota and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. These lines range in voltage from 35kV to 500kV. Work in Xcel Energy’s Transmission Line Engineering Department provides a broad range of career opportunities and extremely challenging high voltage projects. Please verify that your education and/or experience meets the minimum requirements listed. Please do not apply if you do not possess the requirements. Relocation may be offered for this position.

Has full technical responsibility for interpreting, organizing and coordinating project assignments. Plans and develops engineering projects which have unique or controversial problems and which have an important impact on the corporation. Work involves exploration of subject area, definition of scope and selection of problems for investigation and development of novel solutions. Maintains contacts with individuals and units within and outside the corporation for action on technical matters. Requires the use of advance techniques with knowledge and expertise resulting from extensive progressive experience.

To express interest, please send an updated resume and salary requirements to amanda.l.sirek@xcelenergy.com.