Interventions in CapX 2020 docket

Filed under:PUC Docket — posted by admin on April 16, 2008 @ 4:13 pm

I’ve got a lot of catching up to do here, but I’m getting settled in and starting on the pile.

First, there have been two more interventions in the CapX docket, that of the Citizens Energy Task Force, and that of MISO. I tried to get through to Bev Topp about how service is done, but her email bounced back, “mailbox full,” so that didn’t work, and I see now that the ALJ fired off a missive about it. The CETF Petition is straightforward, although I don’t see their interest distinguished from, say, that of UCAN or NoCAPX2020:

CETF Petition for Intervention

Our good friends at MOES sent another of their letters, asking that MISO intervene in this docket:

MOES Letter to MISO April 9, 2008

That letter is a bit odd, where MOES is not a party, yet is asking a stakeholder with a vested interest, transmission planners planning transmission, to join in the fray:

To be clear, OES is not requesting that the Midwest ISO consider advocating for or against the project. The true value of the Midwest ISO’s involvement, in OES’ view, is to provide clear impartial background information, where needed, regarding electric transmission operations, markets and industry challenges as well as information directly pertinent to this case.

I think that you will agree that in its oversight and planning role as the independent transmission system operator of the bulk transmission system in the Midwest region, together with its considerable overall energy expertise, the Midwest ISO is uniquely positioned to assess or comment on electric transmission proposals such as this.

What’s weird about it? Well, it’s not exactly clear and impartial when what transmission planners do is to plan transmission. They’re looking for a particular thing, through particular lenses, so all they see is transmission.

And then what does MISO do but join in the fray, just as requested:

MISO Petition for Intervention

There they go, saying they’ll provide valuable and useful information in an independent, impartial manner. Uh-huh… OK.  and they say that a focus is transmission “expansion” and that:

The Midwest ISO does not — and cannot — have a bias in favor of or opposed to any particular form of energy, unlike at least some of the intervening parties which have stated policy agendas for specific forms or means of meeting electric service demands.

Now let’s just think about this a second.  It’s true that they can’t have a bias to any particular FORM of energy, but the certainly have a bias for transmission!  As an engineer, whose name I can’t recall, once said about energy needs, “If all you’re looking at is transmission, you’ll have a transmission solution.”  Yup.

The good news about this is that it’s great to have some free experts testifying, those of us who can’t afford electrical engineers are most appreciative. But damn… I was hoping to subpoena them! That’s always more fun. I want them to explain line loss, walk through the formula… and about those new coal generators waiting in the MISO queue… and… gentlemen, get your pencils and calculators ready!

To look at everything filed in the docket, go HERE and search for docket 06-1115.

zero comments so far »

Please leave a comment below!

Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post or for TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)




image: detail of installation by Bronwyn Lace