Comments

Wisconsin says Hampton-LaX application INCOMPLETE! — 4 Comments

  1. Bravo, Wisconsin, my old alma mater. They are looking into the matter. That’s good to hear. What a long list of requested info. Impressive.

  2. Minnesota is INCOMPLETE with a lot of things! When will Minnesota get the politics and nonsense out of transmission and power plant siting, and look at the actual need and common sense siting? Why is the Department of Commerce overseeing projects? Why is the public being left out, ill-informed by the Office of Energy Security and the PUC, and not listened to? Does Minnesota belong to the politicians, the corporate elites, and state government bureaucrats? It appears so. Thanks for the WI PSC Letter of Incompleteness!

  3. Not surprising for a developer to wait for the State to ask?

    In looking at the PSC’s check list, some of the last items might be worth noting:

    Under GIS Data/Digital Data 2.3.3; 2.4.13.2.2, the PSC requests,
    (1) ” Load Mgmt.
    (A) The number of residential customers in the La Crosse study area that participate in a direct load program with break out between air conditioning only and air conditioning with water heating. 
    (B) The percentage of residential customers in the study area that participate in a direct load program, broken out by air
    conditioning only and air conditioning with water heating.
    (C) The coincident load reduction available from the residential customers participating in the these programs in the La Crosse study area.

    I’m not sure that the study area would be sufficient to measure as the power could be distributed to a much larger area. Requiring the developer to provide an indicator of how much money has been spent towards peak load management using less invasive ways like direct load programs could be expanded.

    (3). Load Mgmt. Was an energy efficiency analysis conducted to determine if additional energy efficiency is available in the La Crosse study that is not already reflected in the forecast? If so, describe the study method and provide the results.

    The language is unclear. Could they be asking if there are more energy efficiency “measures?” that can be taken in the La Crosse study? We need a copy of a previous study that Xcel or ATC has provided to satisfy such a request. especially since, “simply modeling existing energy efficiency is not adequate to meet the Energy Priorities Law.” PSC docket 137-CE-140.

    Item (4) is about requiring the company to manage its own energy efficiency program or use Focus on Energy incentives.

    Item (5) is about having the energy efficiency programs provide (peak) load management services.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>