Supposedly the St. Paul Port Authority has recommended biogas as fuel for Rock-Tenn.  Now just what does “biogas” mean?  And produced in “rural Minnesota” and sent via pipeline?  What pipeline, through whose yards? And a twist - Rock-Tenn must commit for 10 years?  GOOD, that’s a first… and a necessary requirement to commit to stay if their steam needs are government subsidized.  Would 10 years be enough to justify that level of public spend?  Can the public get an equity interest for its investment?

Garbage?

Hone asked for an assurance that refuse-derived fuel is definitively “off the table.” She didn’t get it, as both Klein and Carpenter said they could not make that statement.

From the Daily Planet:

Rock-Tenn fuel plans: Win/win at last?

Here’s the article from STrib:

Biogas is endorsed as best fuel for recycler

So biogas “endorsed” but garbage not off table.  What does the “endorsement” mean?

The new Draft Air Permit is out for the Laurentian “biomass” burner in Hibbing, and Comments are open until August 18, 2008.  This is the “clean energy” plant that was violating its air permit and was fined.  Now we’ve got the new one… what’s different?

Notice of Draft Air Permit

Draft Air Permit

Draft Air Permit - Technical Support Document

Comments should be sent, BY AUGUST 18, to:

Toni Volkmeier, Air Quality Permits Section
Industrial Division, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road North, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
651-296-8717 – Fax

email: toni.volkmeier@pca.state.mn.us

I noticed in the permit’s Technical Support Document that although the federal rules have been vacated, they are issuing it “as if” noting that the federal rules were incorporated into the Minnesota Rules.  But as Alan notes, if the rules were vacated because they were ineffective, insufficient to protect the environment, what good is that? Here’s direct from the Technical Document:

2. Regulatory and/or Statutory Basis

New Source Review
The facility is an existing major source under New Source Review regulations. No changes are authorized by this permit.

Part 70 Permit Program
The facility is a major source under the Part 70 permit program.

New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
The existing wood boiler (EU007) is subject to New Source Performance Standards Subpart Db. The applicability is not affected by the changes made through this permit action.

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
The wood boiler (EU007) is permitted as subject to NESHAPs Subpart DDDDD, which has been vacated.  All operating conditions remain the same; however, when the CEMS requirements were consolidated into a single group (GP003), any citations that were previously Subpart DDDDD requirements were changed to Minnesota Rules requirements.

Compliance Assurance Monitoring (CAM)
Since there are no actual changes to emission units, CAM is not an issue at this time.

Minnesota State Rules
Portions of the facility are subject to the following Minnesota Standards of Performance:
• Minn. R. 7011.0510 Standards of Performance for Existing Indirect Heating Equipment
• Minn. R. 7011.0715 Standards of Performance for Post-1969 Industrial Process Equipment
• Minn. R. 7011.2300 Standards of Performance for Stationary Internal Combustion Engines
No changes to applicable requirements result from the changes made through this permit amendment.

So here’s my question… if the MPCA is issuing permits under federal rule, and if they’re doing their Part 70 Permits under federal delegation, and where the rule has been vacated because it didn’t cut it, on what basis, under what authority, are they issuing permits?  This seems to be an area where they’re wide open to challenge!  I would think that any permit issued under the Minnesota adoption of those rules that were deemed inadequate could be thrown out rather easily…

Bizarre, but true! Something that makes camping a lot easier — internet access! Week before last, we took a couple of days off  and went up to Lake Itasca so Alan could see more of Minnesota, and given we’ve both got “virtual offices,” it’s really a problem to be off-line. So hearing that Douglas Lodge at Itasca had wireless, yes, Douglas Lodage:

I figured it wouldn’t be that tough to go over there once in a while. Guess again, there was too much to do and then, after we finally got to the desk near the fireplace, and when telling management how much I appreciated having access there, I learned it was all over the park, and even IN THE PINE RIDGE CAMPGROUND! PERFECT.  Yup, here’s the proof, above!

And we had a wonderful visit with Rollie and Shar Jacobsen, who are living now up near Park Rapids, home of a real old fashioned ice cream parlor (Rollie knows what I like!). I so miss having them as neighbors and extended family right downstairs… as we left, Rollie handed me a genuine Jacobsen’s bag, and delight of delights, it was filled with Jerry Garcia Band CD’s, 10-15 (haven’t counted), I’m still on the second one and savoring every bit.

And yes, we did get out in a boat on Lake Itasca, and saw new baby loons, and one huge, HUGE snapping turtle swimming along.  The world’s biggest red pine is a little worse for wear…

No… this wasn’t the one swimming across the lake…

Another coal gasification bites the dust — yes, it took a coon’s age to get this posted, what can I say, the CapX hearings are taking up a lot of time… This was the best news in ages, continuing the theme that IGCC is a bad idea, too risky, too costly. This plant was one that seemed to have a lot of backing, which to me means that IGCC is done. When I’d posted about it, it garnered some wild NRG employee comments on this blog, ones that I hope that those employees’ bosses are aware of! I know NRG is watching, but I think some of their employees need to have their typing fingers taped together and/or not operate a computer while soused!

Here are a few articles with some choice comments:

From the Buffalo News:

Power Authority stops $1.6 billion plans for advanced coal plant at Tonawanda’s Huntley Station

Power Authority officials estimate that it would take an additional $175 million to $200 million per year in subsidies - on top of the significant aid already promised for the project - to bring the price of the electricity produced at the advanced coal plant down to the point where it could compete with other conventional sources of generation.

From newsday.com:

NYPA halts plans for clean-coal plant in Tonawanda

After pursuing various state grants and tax incentives, NYPA determined it is not possible to fully close the gap between what NYPA would have to pay for electricity and competitive market rates.

And from the Post Journal:

NYPA withdraws support for North Tonawanda clean coal project

”The economic, technological and regulatory obstacles are too great to warrant any further efforts at this time,” said Christine Pritchard, a NYPA spokeswoman.

… and…

NYPA officials were also uneasy about the technology. According to the company, there are only two IGCC plants operating nationwide, and 11 IGCC plants were either delayed or cancelled in 2007. In addition, the largest sequestration operation in the world is burying only 1 million tons of carbon dioxide underground annually, a third of what the NRG plant would be required to sequester - and carbon capture and storage technology has never been demonstrated off a clean coal power plant.

… and…

”It is also clear that an explicit and rigorous regulatory process with public support is a prerequisite for sequestration on a large scale. And while some amount of risk is necessary to prove new technology, the financial and environmental risk associated with this large-scale commercial power plant is simply too great,” the report concludes.

… and…

”Simply, at this time, the price gap is too large to overcome” said Pritchard of NYPA.

Tell us something we didn’t already know!!!

Yup, burning coal has an impact, you betcha.  Tell us something we didn’t already know.  But here’s a study that shows some specific results when comparing neurodevelopment of children exposed prenatally with those who were not exposed because the coal plant had been shut down.

Here’s the study:

Benefits of Reducing Prenatal Exposure to Coal Burning Pollutants

So what more do we need to know that shutting down coal plants is overdue?

The Clean Air Interstate Rule has been vacated, and here’s the real deal:

North Carolina v. EPA (consolidated with many more)

OK, one more thing to get figured out…

… to this

What is Tim Pawlenty, the Green Chameleon, thinking? Very odd move… I cannot believe, though I guess it’s good if some of Koppendrayer’s beliefs about Excelsior Energy’s Mesaba Project are genetically implanted in her brain… but some things I find in a search do not bode well. First, she has ZERO experience in utilities. ZERO.

Second, she seems to spout off the way Koppendrayer does. Earlier this session, Wergin weighed in on a bill that would allow chiropractors to practice on animals, saying:

We need to keep in perspective the differences beween animals and humans.

[Animals] do not have the same status of humans… Animals are checked into the cargo space of airplanes.

Here’s Wergin’s take on whistleblower Paul Wotzka testifying:

Paul Wotzka is a hydrologist who worked for the Department of Agriculture for 16 years and then moved to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Last spring, he was invited to testify before a different legislative committee, but his superiors refused permission. Shortly afterward he was fired.

The state maintains Wotzka was fired not for his interest in testifying, but because he took files from the Agriculture Department to his new job.

Sen. Betsy Wergin says that’s reason enough not to have him testify.

“And Senator Marty I’m going to ask that you not have this person testify because I think it’s wrong,” she said.

And then there’s this – Wergin and Laura Brod were leading the GOP charge against Franken:

Here’s Pawlenty’s official blather:

“Betsy has a tremendous combination of small business and public policy experience as well as extensive community involvement,” Governor Pawlenty said. “This perspective will be a great benefit to her on the PUC.”

… now she’s on the PUC… what does this mean? Given a comparison of my little bro’s opinions and mine, it’s even more confusing!

Otter Tail Power and Otter Tail Corporation are in the news again, with a bland look at their corporate structure.  This is the same corporate structure which is being reorganized because the utility and non-utility businesses were all lumped together.  Now, according to 6/3/08 filings at SEC and PUC, they’re going to reorganize, and put it into a utility holding company, and separate out the non-utility over aways from the utility.  And because an abusive kind of guy out west is getting all riled up about reporting on Otter Tail’s connection with Bill Gates, I think it’s time to get some more info out there!

Here’s the story in the STrib:

Is Otter Tail a utility or conglomerate?

And a snippet:

There have been no formal allegations against Otter Tail for commingling money between the utility and its other holdings. Still the utility in recent years faced a string of accusations that irregular accounting hurts ratepayers. Whiste-blowers first raised the issue four years ago, which led the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission to call Otter Tail in for its first comprehensive rate and operations review in 20 years.

Otter Tail, which has about 130,000 customers, almost half of them in Minnesota, has denied any improprieties in its bookkeeping, and an administrative law judge last month told the commission that he found no evidence of inaccurate financial reporting. Still, some advocates are nervous about its growing diversification…

Read the ALJ’s Rate Case recommendation here and check out p. 21, Capital Structure, and p. 71 too:

ALJ Rate Case Recommendation

Here’s the punch line regarding corporate structure reflected in the loosey-goosey capital structure (p. 103):

4. OTP has not shown that its proposed capital structure accurately reflects an appropriate division of debt and equity. The department’s proposed capital structure does reflect an appropriate division of debt and equity and should be adopted in calculating required revenue.

So what do y’all think about their structure?  The STrib article notes Minnesota Power’s other businesses, but they’re organized in a holding company structure with some separation of activities, and it seems that concern about this is a legitimate issue, particularly in a rate case.  If you can’t tell what’s a regulated business and what’s not, how could they justify or support a rate increase?

It’s about time the story on Bill Gate’s active role in Otter Tail Power and the Big Stone II plant was aired in public — how long has it been going on???  The group of Minnesota Representatives brought this up months ago.

LET’S HEAR IT FOR MINNPOST.COM FOR PRINTING WHAT THE STRIB AND STPPP DON’T DARE!

Given his investment and loan, Gate’s interest in Otter Tail Power appears more than “passive”

By Ron Way
Monday, July 7, 2008

When a group of Minnesota legislators pointed to a seeming disconnect between philanthropist Bill Gates’ public calls to address climate change and his partial ownership of a Minnesota utility that’s pushing to build a controversial coal-burning power plant, Gates’ investment manager said the Microsoft billionaire had only “passive” interest in the utility.

But a review of Gates’ investment suggests his 9 percent stake in Otter Tail Power of Fergus Falls, Minn., may be more than passive. Gates owns $90 million in voting stock in the utility, and his investment firm made a strategic $50 million loan to Otter Tail, a move that has attracted the attorney general’s attention.

Moreover, Gates’ Cascade Investment LLC of Kirkland, Wash., has made other investments in coal, including half ownership of a company that owns a large New Mexico utility and a huge stake in a railroad that operates unit trains that haul coal from mines in western Canada.

Otter Tail leads a five-utility consortium seeking to build a large, 550-megawatt coal-burning plant at Milbank, S.D., just across the Minnesota border on Big Stone Lake. Energy advocates, along with several state legislators and a prominent NASA scientist, have opposed the “Big Stone II” plant because it would release massive amounts of carbon, which is linked to climate change.

PUC still examining question of need
Earlier this year, two administrative law judges said the state’s Public Utilities Commission (PUC) should deny a “certificate of need” for transmission lines to carry into the state nearly half of the power from the “Big Stone II” plant. Even though an administrative panel has taken extensive testimony in the matter over several years, the full PUC board has delayed its decision so that still more examination can be conducted.

But it’s Gates’ split personality on climate change, along with his curious loan to Otter Tail, that has attracted attention.

Last August the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation invested some $150 million into a carbon-trading fund designed to reduce carbon emissions of projects in China through something called the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism.

In January, Gates joined Al Gore and Bono in Davos, Switzerland in high profile support for the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals, which included addressing climate change as well as improving people’s health in developing countries. In his Davos speech, Gates expressed concern that climate change “will have the biggest effect on people who have done the least to cause it.”

Businesses that burn or haul coal
Meanwhile, Cascade Investment puts a lot of Gates’ considerable personal wealth into utilities whose business is burning coal or hauling it to industries that do. Here are some places where Cascade has parked Gates’ money:

• An estimated $90 million in voting stock in Otter Tail Power, along with a $50 million loan to Otter Tail that allowed the company to reduce interest payments on debt that was due. The loan wasn’t properly reported to PUC officials, as state law requires of investors that own more than 5 percent of a company to which a loan is made.

• Half ownership of EnergyCo in partnership with PNM Resources of Albuquerque, N.M. EnergyCo owns a 305-megawatt coal-burning plant in Texas and has partnered with utility giant NRG Resources of New Jersey, which operates facilities worldwide that include coal burners, nuclear plants and wind generators. In 2005 Gates invested $100 million to help EnergyCo acquire TNP Enterprises of Fort Worth, Texas, a gas and electric utility that also operates an oil refinery.

• Some $1.6 billion in the Canadian National Railway, with a major business of hauling coal from mines in Alberta and British Columbia to destinations throughout Canada and the central United States, and to ocean ports for international shipment.

When asked about Bill Gates’ public calls to address climate change through his high-profile foundation but his investment that appears to be heavy into coal, which releases atmospheric carbon linked to climate change, a foundation spokesman said only that Gates’ charitable works are separate from his investment company.

Michael Larson, who heads Cascade Investment, is known to refuse to talk with the media; he has declined repeated requests to comment on this story.

Oversees personal and foundation investments

However, a MarketWatch report on Cascade said that Larson not only is in frequent contact with Bill Gates but that he oversees Gates’ personal fortune at Cascade as well as the foundation’s finances.

The discrepancy in purpose caught the eye of Rep. Jean Wagenius, DFL-Minneapolis, and seven other legislators. In February they sent a letter inviting Gates to visit Minnesota to see “green investments we are making” that would provide “many opportunities to align the values of your foundation with your investment strategy.”

On June 6, after repeated promises by the foundation that it would respond to the Wagenius letter, Michael Larson said in a brief letter that Gates’ interest was “passive.”

“But you don’t own nearly a tenth of a company and loan it $50 million without having some involvement in the company that’s beyond passive,” said a state official familiar with the Otter Tail dockets at the PUC but who preferred to remain anonymous.

The Office of Energy Security in the Minnesota Department of Commerce said its review of the loan shows that it helped reduce interest payments by paying off loans that were at a higher interest rate; it recommended that the PUC approve the loan.

However, the attorney general’s office, which has noted that Otter Tail has drawn several anonymous complaints on financial reporting, has said that its review of the circumstances surrounding the Gates loan is continuing.

Ron Way, a former reporter for several Midwest newspapers, covers the environment and energy issues. He can be reached at rway [at] minnpost [dot] com.

The Delmarva Power/Bluewater wind deal, and the first offshore wind project in the U.S., is just about reality.  Monday the Power Purchase Agreement was signed and announced.  At that time there were some legislative tweaks, one including approval of Delmarva Power taking 3.5 Renewable Energy Credits for each “real” one, which didn’t go over real well.  Today, it all was happening at the legislature, where it passed both the House and Senate.  In the Senate, Delmarva Power toady said, on the record, that they really didn’t intend to take 3.5 credits for each one, nope, no, really, that wasn’t what they meant… uh-huh, sure, right, anything you say… so anyway, we don’t know what the actual bill is at this point, and I’ll post if I get my mitts on it.

So from the legislature, it sped over to the Governor, Ruth Ann Minner, the “Keg with Legs,” and she signed it, el pronto, and it’s on the front page of the paper already, minutes after it was signed:

Governor signs offshore wind legislation

By GINGER GIBSON • The News Journal • June 25, 2008

Gov. Ruth Ann Minner signed legislation today that will enable the completion of the Bluewater Wind/Delmarva Power agreement, announced earlier this week. The signing comes after both chambers of the state Legislature unanimously approved the legislation.

Senate Bill 328 was filed on the floor by Majority Leader Sen. Anthony DeLuca, D-Varlano, moments before it was considered for a vote.

Because of the speed with which it was filed and considered, it was voted upon before the specifics and wording of the bill were made available to the public.

Clarification was made on the floor of the Senate to explain the state will not decrease the amount of units in the renewable energy portfolio by approving the terms of the agreement.

Several members of the Senate spoke in favor of the legislation and recognized DeLuca for working to get the agreement between the two companies worked out.

“There were times I never thought we would get to this day,” Sen. Karen Peterson, D-Stanton, said.

While some spoke in favor of the legislation, they reminded fellow members that this measure should only be considered a first step in pursuing the use of renewable energy.

“I think with respect to renewables we have a long way to go,” Sen. David Sokola, D-Newark, said. “Our dependency on fossil fuels is harming us in many ways.”

GO BLUEWATER!!  EEEEEEEEEEEE-HA!