PSC sends ATC & Badger Coulee to the woodshed
This is good news — Wisconsin’s Public Service Commission emphasized the “Public Service” part of their charge in their November 21, 2013 missive to ATC about the Joint ATC and Xcel Application for the Badger Coulee transmission line (PSC Docket 5-CE-142).
There are fifteen single spaced pages of requests and a couple more on p. 16. WOW. They’re evenly divided between environmental issues and need, and the need ones just made my day, here’s the p. 9 requests… SNORT!!!
Docket 05-CE-142
Items Identified as Missing, Incomplete, or Requiring Clarification – Project Need01.87. (Application p. 7; AFR Section 1.0.) Identify the owners and investors of the proposed project and percent of ownership of each (Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 111.55(6)).
01.88. (Application p. 7; AFR Section 1.0.) Discuss how DPC, WPPI, and/or SMMPA as investors of the proposed project would change the ownership for ATC and NSPW.
01.89. (Application, p. 22, AFR Section 1.7.) Provide the date by which Badger-Coulee must be completed and in-service, and explain what factors determine this time frame.
01.90. (Application pp. 24-30; AFR Section 2.0.) This section of the application discusses the need for and alternatives to the proposed project. The discussion refers to various sections of Appendix D, but does not provide a comprehensive summary of the results of the analysis. In order to allow for the public to better understand the need for the proposed project, revise and expand Section 2.0 of the application to include a comprehensive discussion of the need for and alternatives to the proposed project. Include in the revised section a quantitative summary of the costs and benefits of the proposed project for both Wisconsin and the MISO footprint, with a clear indication of each in supporting tables and data files. In this expanded summary, specifically address areas of need and alternatives including: local and regional load serving capability; regional benefits; alternatives including energy efficiency and other alternative sources of supply; and, other areas as appropriate. Include in this revised and expanded summary information included in any responses regarding questions relating to Application Appendix D.
01.91. (Application p. 28, Section 2.7; AFR Section 2.7.) Discuss whether and how any increased operation and maintenance costs for this project are considered in the analysis for the proposed project.
01.92. (Application p. 28; AFR Section 2.7.) Discuss whether and how one-time environmental impact fees and annual impact fees for the proposed project are considered in the analysis for the proposed project.
01.93. (Application p. 28; AFR Section 2.8.) Provide an updated reliability study to determine the base case reliability projects required. The study should reflect: lower currently projected peak and energy requirements; reliability projects that have already been completed or will be completed regardless of any 345 kV alternatives; announced retirements such as Nelson Dewey Units 1 and 2, and Alma Units 1 through 5 and any transmission upgrades required; the latest MISO generation interconnection requests, and the latest transmission interconnections. Discuss any differences in assumptions to those used in the PROMOD analysis.
That ought to keep them busy for a while…
In the Vernon County Broadcaster:
Wisconsin regulators asked for more information Thursday on the Badger-Coulee transmission project.
The request for more details was not unexpected.
Two groups have petitioned the PSC for the right to intervene in the review.
This story has been updated to reflect that American Transmission Company and Xcel Energy are equal partners in the Badger-Coulee project.