ATC’s FERC Complaint over Hampton-LaX

Filed under:Uncategorized — posted by admin on October 18, 2012 @ 6:15 pm


Remember the fight Xcel Energy picked with ATC over ownership of the “La Crosse – Madison” or “Badger – Coulee” transmission line?  Xcel won that round, and ATC couldn’t let that go unchallenged, so off they go trying to get back at Xcel:

FERC Order – Granting Xcel Complaint – July 19, 2012

Statement of Norris on Transmission Complaints

There’s been a round of Motions for Reconsideration, and that’s pending… and while it is, ATC jumped in and filed a similar Complaint against Xcel, on the “if it works for them, it could work for us” and filed requesting ownership in the Hampton-Rochester-La Crosse line!  This Complaint is a hoot, it’s making the same claims we have been making, that the “benefits” of the Hampton-Rochester-La Crosse line are dependent on connecting from La Crosse to Madison:

ATC Complaint against Xcel Energy EL13-9

The Notice went out – Intervention Deadline is Monday, October 22, 2012, @ 5p Eastern:

FERC Notice – EL13-9

And so far Exelon and City of Rochester (!) have Intervened:

Intervention – City of Rochester

Here’s a good quote:

Further emphasizing that the benefits of the Twin Cities–La Crosse segment were wholly contingent on a plan that allowed for interconnection to the La Crosse–Madison segment, Mr. Kline continued:

In any case, even if the PSCW decides to move the connection between the two lines to a different point, the 345 kV connection from the La Crosse area to Madison must connect directly with the345 kV line from the Twin Cities to La Crosse in order to obtain the reliability and energy transfer benefits of a 345 kV connection between the two systems. (Kline Aff. para. 35)

“Wholly contingent.”

To check the new ATC v. Xcel Energy docket, go to the FERC docket look-up HERE and plug in docket EL13-9, and for the prior Xcel Energy v. ATC, plug in EL12-28.


Transmission? It’s NOT needed!

Filed under:News coverage — posted by admin on @ 4:41 pm


Yes, once more with feeling… this transmission?  It’s NOT needed!

Here’s an article from the St. Cloud Times, good to know they’re following up on the CapX 2020 transmission project and keeping an eye on Xcel Energy.  This demonstrates what we’ve been saying for how long now?  CapX 2020 is NOT needed:

Record hot summer didn’t mean record electricity useage, Xcel Energy reports

In one of the hottest summers on record, Minnesotans should have used a near-record amount of electricity.

But it wasn’t even close.

In fact, electricity use actually fell in the scorching summer of 2012.

According to Xcel Energy figures, projected 2012 sales will be more than 1 percent below those of 2011. Average use per customer will drop by the same percentage.

Why? Strong conservation efforts and a weak economy, according to Laura McCarten, Xcel Energy regional vice president.

Xcel’s million-plus customers are trimming their power consumption — installing fluorescent bulbs, adjusting thermostats, insulating homes and switching to more efficient appliances.

Others — mostly businesses — are cutting back involuntarily. A sour economy has forced businesses to cut back, and some, such as the Ford plant in St. Paul, have closed permanently.

The overall impact of conservation and a slow economy can be seen in Xcel’s power plants. In the past five years, those plants have had to produce 6 percent less power per customer.

The company has a target, specified in Minnesota’s 2007 Energy Act, of cutting anticipated consumption by 1.5 percent every year.

The 1.5 percent is measured according to what energy consumption would have been without conservation programs. The company hit the 1.5 percent reduction target in 2011 and is on track to do it again this year, said Lee Gabler, Xcel’s director of demand side management and renewable operations.


image: detail of installation by Bronwyn Lace