Here’s more on the reach of CapX, from the Grand Forks Herald Review, couched in “it’s for wind” propaganda:<\/p>\n
State’s wind energy production doubles<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
… Of course, wind energy isn’t about to replace coal or other energy sources in the state and region any time soon…<\/em><\/p>\n
… \u00e2\u20ac\u0153For a while, utilities were reluctant to build transmission lines because of questions of how they would get their return on the investment,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Nisbet said. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153That’s changing.” …<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Yup, it’s changing all right, changing to give utilities instant return for transmission expenditures. And that’s because the state of Minnesota, at the encouragement of “environmental” groups contractually beholden to promoting transmission, gave them the ability to recover costs immediately if it’s “for renewable” (as was claimed in the SW MN 345kV line where ~11% at most would be coming off of Buff Ridge). Here’s the 2005 Transmission Omnibus Bill from Hell<\/a><\/strong>. This gave out perks like this:<\/p>\n
216B.16, Subd. 7b. [TRANSMISSION COST ADJUSTMENT.] <\/strong>(a)
\nNotwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the
\ncommission may approve a tariff mechanism for the automatic
\nannual adjustment of charges for the Minnesota jurisdictional
\ncosts of new transmission facilities that have been separately
\nfiled and reviewed and approved by the commission under section
\n216B.243 or are certified as a priority project or deemed to be
\na priority transmission project under section 216B.2425.
\n(b) Upon filing by a public utility or utilities providing
\ntransmission service, the commission may approve, reject or
\nmodify, after notice and comment, a tariff that:
\n(1) allows the utility to recover on a timely basis the
\ncosts net of revenues of facilities approved under section
\n216B.243 or certified or deemed to be certified under section
\n216B.2425;
\n(2) allows a return on investment at the level approved in
\nthe utility’s last general rate case, unless a different return
\nis found to be consistent with the public interest;
\n(3) provides a current return on construction work in
\nprogress, provided that recovery from Minnesota retail customers
\nfor the allowance for funds used during construction is not
\nsought through any other mechanism;
\n(4) allows for recovery of other expenses if shown to
\npromote a least-cost project option or is otherwise in the
\npublic interest;
\n(5) allocates project costs appropriately between wholesale
\nand retail customers;
\n(6) provides a mechanism for recovery above cost, if
\nnecessary to improve the overall economics of the project or
\nprojects or is otherwise in the public interest; and
\n(7) terminates recovery once costs have been fully
\nrecovered or have otherwise been reflected in the utility’s
\ngeneral rates.
\n(c) A public utility may file annual rate adjustments to be
\napplied to customer bills paid under the tariff approved in
\nparagraph (b). In its filing, the public utility shall provide:
\n(1) a description of and context for the facilities
\nincluded for recovery;
\n(2) a schedule for implementation of applicable projects;
\n(3) the utility’s costs for these projects;
\n(4) a description of the utility’s efforts to ensure the
\nlowest costs to ratepayers for the project; and
\n(5) calculations to establish that the rate adjustment is
\nconsistent with the terms of the tariff established in paragraph
\n(b).
\n(d) Upon receiving a filing for a rate adjustment pursuant
\nto the tariff established in paragraph (b), the commission shall
\napprove the annual rate adjustments provided that, after notice
\nand comment, the costs included for recovery through the tariff
\nwere or are expected to be prudently incurred and achieve
\ntransmission system improvements at the lowest feasible and
\nprudent cost to ratepayers. <\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\nThis bill also established “Transmission Only” companies, like TRANSLink, which had been strongly opposed by former Attorney General Mike Hatch. But then the “environmental organizations” did the “TRANSLink deal” which required, among other things, promotion of transmission companies, so this legislation, pushed by Bill Grant, Izaak Walton League, and George Crocker, NAWO, gave Xcel, et al., this option that was so disfavored that Xcel withdrew it from the PUC:<\/p>\n
Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2004, section 216B.02, is
\namended by adding a subdivision to read:
\nSubd. 10. [TRANSMISSION COMPANY.] “Transmission company”
\nmeans persons, corporations, or other legal entities and their
\nlessees, trustees, and receivers, engaged in the business of
\nowning, operating, maintaining, or controlling in this state
\nequipment or facilities for furnishing electric transmission
\nservice in Minnesota, but does not include public utilities,
\nmunicipal electric utilities, municipal power agencies,
\ncooperative electric associations, or generation and
\ntransmission cooperative power associations. <\/a><\/p>\nand…<\/p>\n
Sec. 3. Minnesota Statutes 2004, section 216B.16, is
\namended by adding a subdivision to read:
\nSubd. 7c. [TRANSMISSION ASSETS TRANSFER.] (a) Public
\nutility owners of transmission facilities may, subject to Public
\nUtilities Commission approval, transfer operational control or
\nownership of those transmission assets to a transmission company
\nsubject to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission jurisdiction.
\nFor transmission asset transfers by a public utility, the Public
\nUtilities Commission must review the request to transfer either
\nin the context of a general rate case under this section or by
\ninitiating other proceedings it determines provide adequate
\nreview of the transmission asset transfer. The Public Utilities
\nCommission may limit, in whole or in part, the transfer of
\ntransmission assets or the timing of those transfers by a public
\nutility if it finds the limitation in the public interest. The
\ncommission may only approve a transfer if it finds that the
\ntransfer is consistent with the public interest.
\nIn assessing the public interest, the commission shall
\nevaluate, among other things, whether the transfer:
\n(1) facilitates the development of transmission
\ninfrastructure necessary to ensure reliability, encourages the
\ndevelopment of renewable resources, and accommodates energy
\ntransfers within and between states;
\n(2) protects Minnesota ratepayers against the subsidization
\nof wholesale transactions through retail rates;
\n(3) ensures, in the case of operational control of
\ntransmission assets, that the state retains jurisdiction over
\nthe transferring utility for all aspects of service under
\nchapter 216B;
\n(4) impacts Minnesota retail rates; and
\n(5) protects Minnesota ratepayers from paying capital costs
\nfor transmission assets that have already been recovered.
\n(b) A transfer of operational control or ownership of
\ntransmission assets by a public utility under this subdivision
\nis subject to section 216B.50. The relationship between a
\npublic utility transferring operational control of transmission
\nassets to another entity under this subdivision is subject to
\nthe provisions of section 216B.48. If a public utility
\ntransfers ownership of its transmission assets to a transmission
\nprovider subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy
\nRegulatory Commission, the Public Utilities Commission may
\npermit the utility to file a rate schedule providing for the
\nautomatic adjustment of charges to recover the cost of
\ntransmission services purchased under tariff rates approved by
\nthe Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
\n(c) A municipal utility, a municipal power agency, or a
\njoint venture pursuant to section 452.25 may transfer
\noperational control or ownership of transmission assets to a
\ntransmission company, or make investments in a transmission
\ncompany, if the governing body of the municipal utility,
\nmunicipal power agency, or joint venture finds that the transfer
\nor investment is consistent with the public interest and will
\nfacilitate the development of infrastructure necessary to ensure
\nreliability.
\n[EFFECTIVE DATE.] This section is effective August 1, 2005,
\nand applies to petitions for approval of transfer of
\ntransmission assets filed on or after that date and does not
\napply to proceedings pending before the Public Utilities
\nCommission before that date. <\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\nSo let’s see, is there anything else the utilities need to prepare for CapX 2020??? Oh, the “Minnesota” need criteria was gutted, changed to be “regional” so that opens the door even wider… gee, thanks…<\/a><\/p>\n
216B.243, Subdivision 3
\n(3) the relationship of the proposed facility to overall
\nstate energy needs, as described in the most recent state energy
\npolicy and conservation report prepared under section 216C.18,
\nor, in the case of a high-voltage transmission line, the
\nrelationship of the proposed line to regional energy needs, as
\npresented in the transmission plan submitted under section
\n216B.2425;<\/a><\/p>\nand…<\/a><\/p>\n
(9) with respect to a high-voltage transmission line, the<\/a>
\n benefits of enhanced regional reliability, access, or<\/a>
\n deliverability to the extent these factors improve the<\/a>
\n robustness of the transmission system or lower costs for<\/a>
\n electric consumers in Minnesota; <\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\nHere’s a 2007 utility infrastructure rate return scheme that gives them pronto-payback:<\/p>\n
\u00c2\u00a0 Sec. 3. [216B.1636] RECOVERY OF ELECTRIC UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE
\nCOSTS.
\nSubdivision 1. Definitions. (a) “Electric utility” means a public utility as defined in
\nsection 216B.02, subdivision 4, that furnishes electric service to retail customers.
\n(b) “Electric utility infrastructure costs” or “EUIC” means costs for electric utility
\ninfrastructure projects that were not included in the electric utility’s rate base in its most
\nrecent general rate case.
\n(c) “Electric utility infrastructure projects” means projects owned by an electric
\nutility that:
\n(1) replace or modify existing electric utility infrastructure, including utility-owned
\nbuildings, if the replacement or modification is shown to conserve energy or use energy
\nmore efficiently, consistent with section 216B.241, subdivision 1c; or
\n(2) conserve energy or use energy more efficiently by using waste heat recovery
\nconverted into electricity as defined in section 216B.241, subdivision 1, paragraph (n).
\nSubd. 2. Filing. (a) The commission may approve an electric utility’s petition for
\na rate schedule to recover EUIC under this section. An electric utility may petition the
\ncommission to recover a rate of return, income taxes on the rate of return, incremental
\nproperty taxes, if any, plus incremental depreciation expense associated with EUIC.
\n(b) The filing is subject to the following:
\n(1) an electric utility may submit a filing under this section no more than once
\nper year; and
\n(2) an electric utility must file sufficient information to satisfy the commission
\nregarding the proposed EUIC or be subject to denial by the commission. The information
\nincludes, but is not limited to:
\n(i) the location, description, and costs associated with the project;
\n(ii) evidence that the electric utility infrastructure project will conserve energy or use
\nenergy more efficiently than similar utility facilities currently used by the electric utility;
\n(iii) the proposed schedule for implementation;
\n(iv) a description of the costs, and salvage value, if any, associated with the existing
\ninfrastructure replaced or modified as a result of the project;
\n(v) the proposed rate design and an explanation of why the proposed rate design
\nis in the public interest;
\n(vi) the magnitude and timing of any known future electric utility projects that the
\nutility may seek to recover under this section;
\n(vii) the magnitude of EUIC in relation to the electric utility’s base revenue as
\napproved by the commission in the electric utility’s most recent general rate case,
\nexclusive of fuel cost adjustments;
\n(viii) the magnitude of EUIC in relation to the electric utility’s capital expenditures
\nsince its most recent general rate case;
\n(ix) the amount of time since the utility last filed a general rate case and the utility’s
\nreasons for seeking recovery outside of a general rate case;
\n(x) documentation supporting the calculation of the EUIC; and
\n(xi) a cost and benefit analysis showing that the electric utility infrastructure project
\nis in the public interest.
\n(c) Upon approval of the proposed projects and associated EUIC rate schedule, the
\nutility may implement the electric utility infrastructure projects.
\nSubd. 3. Commission authority; orders. The commission may issue orders
\nnecessary to implement and administer this section.<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\nOh, and they also limited the amount that a transmission company can be assessed for permitting proceedings, yup, good idea when CapX 2020 is coming through, the biggest project ever, and we’ve got an agency that couldn’t get it up if its life depended on it …<\/p>\n
216B.62
\nSubd. 5a. [ASSESSING TRANSMISSION COMPANIES.] The
\ncommission and department may charge transmission companies
\ntheir proportionate share of the expenses incurred in the review
\nand disposition of proceedings under sections 216B.2425,
\n216B.243, 216B.48, 216B.50, and 216B.79. A transmission company
\nis not liable for costs and expenses in a calendar year in
\nexcess of the limitation on costs that may be assessed against
\npublic utilities under subdivision 2. A transmission company
\nmay object to and appeal bills of the commission and department
\nas provided in subdivision 4. <\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\nBut hey… Crocker got C-BED out of this deal, doesn’t that make it all worthwhile? Who pays? Who benefits?<\/p>\n
Minn. Stat. 216B.1612 Community Based Energy Development. Tariff. <\/strong><\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
And we all know whose company C-BED is, eh?<\/p>\n
C-BED Secretary of State filings:<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Community Based Energy Development – name reserved 3\/9\/05 <\/a><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Assumed Name filed same day, 3\/9\/05<\/a><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Web site established 12\/25\/05 per Wayback Machine<\/p>\n
www.c-bed.org<\/a><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
And then there’s the 2007 C-BED perks:<\/p>\n
Chapter 57, S.F. 2096 <\/a><\/strong>
\nChapter 136, S.F. 154<\/strong><\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\nYup, no question why we’re where we are now with not a heck of a lot to do, under the statutes, to shut this open door to CapX 2020. Thanks, guys… it’s your legacy.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Here’s more on the reach of CapX, from the Grand Forks Herald Review, couched in “it’s for wind” propaganda: State’s wind energy production doubles … Of course, wind energy isn’t about to replace coal or other energy sources in the …<\/span> Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10,11],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-118","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-laws-rules","category-news-coverage"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/nocapx2020.info\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/118","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/nocapx2020.info\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/nocapx2020.info\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nocapx2020.info\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nocapx2020.info\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=118"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/nocapx2020.info\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/118\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/nocapx2020.info\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=118"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nocapx2020.info\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=118"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nocapx2020.info\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=118"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}