ATC’s FERC Complaint over Hampton-LaX
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:
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:
The Notice went out – Intervention Deadline is Monday, October 22, 2012, @ 5p Eastern:
And so far Exelon and City of Rochester (!) have Intervened:
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.
Remember – INTERVENTION DEADLINE OCTOBER 22, 2012.
Comments
ATC’s FERC Complaint over Hampton-LaX — No Comments
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>