Overland Comments - Hiawatha DEIS

Exhibit A - NM-SPG - July 24, 2008

Exhibit B - NSP Petition for CFSR

Exhibit C - NSP/Taylors Falls/St. Croix Falls Agreement

Exhibit D - Chisago County Resolution re: Facilities Surcharge Rider

Exhibit E - Comments of Power Line Task Force - Docket 99-799

Exhibit F - Conductor Specs - from PUC Docket 01-1958, Ex 35 Application, Appendix 7

Exhibit G - Edison Institute - Transmission Property Values Report

Exhibits D and E, oh my, time flies… I’d completely forgotten about those.  And the utilities keep singing the same old tired songs…

1. Go to www.puc.state.mn.us
2. Click on “Search eDockets“
3. Search for:

• 08-1233 - Wind Siting Permit
• 09-1186 - Certificate of Need
• 09-1349 - Power Purchase Agreement
• 09-1350 - Power Purchase Agreement

The EIS Scoping Meeting was held by the MN Dept. of Commerce MOES last Thursday, and here’s the report from the Red Wing Republican Beagle:

Published March 05 2010

Weighing in on wind

MAZEPPA - Larry Hartman threw a question out to the large crowd gathered Thursday to learn and comment about a proposed 52-turbine wind farm in rural Goodhue.

“What is wind?” the Minnesota Office of Energy Security staffer asked.

Mumbles from the crowd highlighted what has divided some neighbors and friends the past few years since wind energy companies came knocking, offering landowners money to house turbines.

“An investment.”

“Energy.”

“A scam.”

More than 30 residents provided a wide variety of opinions and comments during a three-hour meeting to gather input for an environmental review required as part of AWA Goodhue’s certificate of need application filed with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission.

The company, managed by National Wind, also has filed a site permit application with the PUC, the state agency that handles such large-sale projects.

Some Goodhue County residents remain skeptical of the proposed 32,000-acre project that some of their neighbors and wind energy company advocates say will stimulate the area’s economy and help the state meet renewable energy demands.

Hundreds of project opponents - dubbed Goodhue Wind Truth - have submitted a petition to the Goodhue County Board asking for a “safe renewable energy plan.”

The petition asks commissioners to implement a one-half mile setback between wind turbines and homes to help reduce the health and safety threats residents say turbines pose.

“The safety and health of people is a priority over money,” said Steve Groth, a Belle Creek Township landowner and member of Goodhue Wind Truth. “The government is there to protect you. When you sidestep that issue, everything falls apart.”

Economic opportunity

Chuck Burdick, senior wind developer with National Wind, said his company’s project will bring 100 to 200 jobs to the area during construction and two to five permanent jobs.

He said leaseholders and participants will receive more than $20 million over the life of the project.

“We think that’s a significant economic injection into the area,” Burdick said.

Some area landowners agree.

They say harvesting wind gives farmers another way to supplement their income and that wind energy is another part of the changing rural lifestyle.

Larry Fox, a Belle Creek Township landowner, said he hears the hum of corn driers and can smell manure when the wind blows just right.

“I don’t complain,” he said. “We just adapt and know this is a farm community.”

Fox said he would receive $30,000 over the next 20 years for housing a wind turbine.

“That’s a tremendous amount of revenue for these small communities,” Fox said. “I think revenue outweighs a lot of factors here.”

Other farmers say they’re excited to house alternative energy on their land.

Sara Linker Nord lives in Minneola Township and has land in AWA Goodhue’s project footprint. She said she found the wind turbines just outside Palm Springs, Calif., “aesthetically pleasing and majestic” and was disappointed when she found out others did not feel the same.

“It gives farms another crop with little land loss,” she said. “Alternative energy created on American soil increases our energy independence.”

Health concerns

But opponents argue the dangers associated with wind turbines outweigh any alleged financial benefits.

“When you put these turbines up and call yourself and environmentalist, I’d like you to do some soul searching,” said Tom Schulte, a rural Goodhue County landowner who said he recently built a geothermally heated and cooled energy efficient home.

“Because you’re probably not doing it for the environment, you’re doing it because you’re profiting.”

Schulte and other opponents said the environment and rural landscape are at risk if wind energy is not developed properly and responsibly. Livestock, water supplies, agricultural land, bald eagles and other birds need to be protected and studies need to be completed to analyze wind farm impacts, several residents told state officials.

Opponents also argue the state-required setbacks between homes and turbines are not great enough to minimize safety and health issues associated with turbine shadow flicker and noise.

Minnesota law requires a minimum 500-foot setback from residences or the state noise standard, whichever is greater. Minnesota’s noise standard restricts wind turbines from exceeding 50 decibels at night.

In practice, meeting that standard often means placing wind turbines at distances of 700 to 1,200 feet, according to a recent report by the Minnesota Department of Health.

The DOH’s scientific study found that noise from wind turbines “generally is not a major concern for humans beyond a half-mile or so,” because of design innovations to reduce noise.

Goodhue Wind Truth members want at half-mile setbacks. AWA Goodhue is doing voluntary 1,500-foot setbacks (just over one-quarter mile) from non-participating residents, Burdick said.

Zumbrota Mayor Richard Bauer also asked state officials to consider two-mile setbacks from Zumbrota and Goodhue’s corporate limits to make sure the cities are able to grow in an “orderly manner.”

Comments for the environmental report will be accepted until March 26. They can be sent to Larry Hartman, Minnesota Department of Commerce, 85 Seventh Place E. Suite 500, St. Paul, MN 55101. Comments can be sent by e-mail to larry.hartman@state.mn.us.

Photo from the Country News - Does MOES’ Larry Hartman have a headache?  Is he dreaming of retirement?  He IS holding on to the microphone, word has it that people such as the speaker here, Dean Bungum, weren’t given the microphone to speak.  It was standing room only for the MOES public meeting for the wind project going up on Dexter.

On March 4, Thursday, it was the same scene in Mazeppa for the Goodhue Wind Project…   Oh, the AVA Goodhue Wind Project, the names have been changed to protect … nevermind.  We don’t know why the name was changed.  But there are new people involved.  How does that change in ownership affect the already questioned C-BED status of this project?

They held the Goodhue meeting in Mazeppa?  Why?  Why not in Goodhue County?  Why not at the Goodhue Lions Club?  Why not at the Zumbrota school?  Or the Legion on 58 in the middle of town…

There are some significant deadlines in the Goodhue Wind Project.  Oh, first, to look up the dockets on PUC site:

CLICK HERE FOR PUC DOCKET SEARCH

Search for 09-1186 (Certificate of Need); 08-1233 (Siting) and 09-1349 & 09-1350 (Power Purchase Agmts)

IMPORTANT DATES:

March 15 - Comments in PPA Dockets on Xcel’s request for amendment - send to stuart.mitchell@state.mn.us and burl.haar@state.mn.us and file on eFiling if you can.

March 26 - Comments for scope of Environmental Report for Siting & Certificate of Need - send to larry.hartman@state.mn.us

March 29 - Reply Comments in PPA Dockets about others comments on Xcel’s request for amendment - send to stuart.mitchell@state.mn.us and burl.haar@state.mn.us and file on eFiling if you can.

Holler if questions!

This was in the mail — what a day this has been.  I’ve been buried in other things and lost track of this one.

ORDER EXTINGUISHING CERTIFICATE OF NEED, SUSPENDING ROUTE PERMIT, PROVIDING FOR PERMIT REVOCATION, AND REQUIRING FILINGS

Big Stone II transmission connected into CapX.

The transmission study shows that BSII transmission needs CapX:

Draft BSII Delivery Report to MISO

G392 System Impact Study Report Draft 8-24-06

BSII SPG Presentation 10-19-06

And the question remains — how much does CapX 2020 need BSII?

Thanks to a little birdie for bringing this PUC Order to my attention!!!

Stop the Lines!!!

National Park Service has extended the deadline for EIS Scoping Comments on the Susquehanna-Roseland transmission project.  WHEW!  Now we have until March 12 to send our comments in!

NPS Home Page for Susquehanna-Roseland Transmission Project

Get your clues on Comments from what they do and do not include:

NPS Internal Scoping Document

It’s in the Pocono Times:

Transmission line public scoping period extended

From the NPS blog:

Posted March 5th, 2010 by Kurt Repanshek

High public interest has prompted the superintendents of Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, and the Middle Delaware National Scenic and Recreational River and National Recreation Water Trail to extend by a week the public comment period on a proposal to run a transmission line across the areas.

The comment period was scheduled to end today, but has been extended through March 12.

“Scoping comments,” those that suggest areas the Park Service should examine in preparing an environmental impact statement, are being taken to help agency managers prepare an EIS on a proposal to replace existing 80-foot transmission towers with larger towers (up to 200 feet high) and add an additional 500 kV transmission line.

Park Service officials say the request would necessitate widening the cleared area and the existing right-of-way and constructing access roads. The proposed expanded line and new towers would impact the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area; the Middle Delaware National Scenic and Recreational River and National Recreation Water Trail; and the Appalachian National Scenic Trail.

The EIS will analyze a reasonable range of alternatives to meet project objectives; evaluate potential issues and impacts to the resources and values of the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, Middle Delaware National Scenic and Recreational River, and the Appalachian National Scenic Trail park units, and identify mitigation measures to lessen the degree or extent of these impacts.

There are numerous ways for the public to provide comments on the public scoping phase of the planning process, including leaving a message on the Park Planning Information Telephone Line (570-426-2491), submitting comments online through a link on the National Park Service Planning, Environment and Public Comment site, http://parkplanning.nps.gov (select Appalachian NST or Delaware Water Gap NRA), or by mailing comments to:

National Park Service
Attention: DEWA PPL EIS Planning Team
Denver Service Center-Planning Division
P.O. Box 25287
Denver, CO 80225-0287

Detailed information about the need for the EIS and the project timeline
can be found on the National Park Service Planning, Environment and Public
Comment site: http://parkplanning.nps.gov.

Repeat after me… EASTERN STATES DON’T WANT OUR MIDWEST TRANSMISSION.

Once more with feeling… EASTERN STATES DON’T WANT OUR MIDWEST TRANSMISSION!!!

And they don’t give a rodent’s rump what we do with our transmission but THEY DO NOT WANT TO PAY FOR IT!

It’s not anything new, but it seems that the message is getting through all the way to Iowa.   Soon Minnesota? The message?  That the east coast does not want Midwest transmission, that they have their own renewables and not only that, they know that transmission from the Midwest means coal and, most importantly, THEY WILL NOT PAY FOR TRANSMISSION FOISTED UPON THEM.

The 7th Circuit case tossing out PJM’s cost apportionment scheme must be having an impact because everyone is freakin’ about cost allocation.  Again, GOOD!  The court said that PJM could not shove the costs of transmission on those who do not benefit from it:

Illinois Commerce Commission v. FERC - August 6, 2009

Enter the Coalition for Fair Transmission Policy, just launched today with a press conference in Washington, D.C.

Dig this from their site:

Assessment of National EHV Transmission Grid Overlay Proposals: Cost-Benefit Methodologies and Claims

HA!  I love it when that happens…

Here’s some background on our Midwest Transmission — transmission we don’t need and they don’t want:

JCSP & UMTDI in the news

This opposition to Midwest transmission is nothing new, I’ve entered documentation in the record in a couple of proceedings now, but what is new is that as of today’s “launch,” there’s now an industry group advocating against Midwest transmission, and that’s one utility interest I’m glad to see hopping mad as hell and not going to take it anymore!  GOOD!  Maybe that will help stop this stupid transmission-fest across the Midwest.

PUC Chair David Boyd had it right when he testified before Minnesota’s Legislative Energy Commission and led off with, “We need a business plan.”  Yes, that’s true, there is no business plan, and there is no MARKET for transmission.  I just hope that message gets through before “we” build and WE have to pay for all these wires in the air!

Here are a few recent posts of mine on this, followed by today’s article in the Des Moines Register.

Offshore transmission, NOT transmission from the Midwest

Eastern Governors stand up against transmission!

And today’s Des Moines Register article:

Eastern states balk at paying wind cost

By DAN PILLER • dpiller@dmreg.com • March 5, 2010

Much of the nation isn’t eager to help pay for a high-voltage transmission line to sell Iowa’s extra wind power to big markets east of the Mississippi River.

“If Iowa wants to build a transmission line for their energy, we have no objection. But Iowa or the Midwest should pay for it,” said Ian Bowles, secretary of energy and environmental affairs in Massachusetts. New England states want to produce their own wind energy from offshore farms.

A coalition of utilities in Eastern states will announce today their opposition to a 765-kilovolt transmission line, more than double the capacity of the current 345-kilovolt lines. The line would send electricity from the Dakotas, Iowa and Minnesota to Chicago and points east. Iowa is the nation’s second-largest producer of wind-generated electricity, behind Texas.

Such a transmission line won public support from President Barack Obama on his visit to Newton last April. It is a linchpin of the renewable energy policies of Gov. Chet Culver and Iowa’s largest electric utility, MidAmerican Energy of Des Moines.

Alliant Energy has its objections

Proposals by MidAmerican and ITC Holdings, which runs transmission lines in eastern Iowa, are considered the best chance for Iowa to reap a wind energy version of the financial windfall enjoyed by Texas and other oil- and gas-producing states.

But as wind energy becomes bigger and more corporate, the utility industry is divided even in Iowa.

Alliant Energy, which serves 525,000 customers in parts of northern, eastern and southern Iowa, has joined the newly organized Coalition for Fair Transmission Policy, which promises to fight a government-mandated transmission line from the Midwest.

“We don’t think the costs of transmission should be socialized,” said Alliant spokesman Ryan Stensland. Alliant’s wind energy production in Iowa is a fraction of MidAmerican’s.

Bruce Edelston, executive director for the Coalition for Fair Transmission Policy, said his group has formed to fight a proposal in the Senate to give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission authority to site and assess costs for a wind transmission line.

“We don’t think it’s necessarily a good idea to build a multistate transmission line,” said Edelston, whose group will hold a coming-out news conference today in Washington, D.C.

The Fair Transmission group represents companies serving 28 percent of U.S. electric customers, including utilities in New York City, Michigan, Indianapolis, New England, Pennsylvania, the Carolinas and Florida, New Jersey and Georgia.

Those states presumably would be among potential markets for the wind-generated electricity moved from the Dakotas, Minnesota and Iowa, which have the potential to produce far more wind energy than would be consumed there.

Other states have their own plans

While Iowa has speckled its countryside with wind turbines, other states have similar aspirations.

Atlantic seaboard states advanced plans for offshore wind farms, which they say would eliminate the need to ship wind-generated electricity from Iowa.

Michigan is studying a proposal for a wind farm in Lake Michigan, so it’s little surprise that two Michigan-based utilities are aligned with the Fair Transmission group.

MidAmerican Energy, already the largest investor-owned utility wind energy operator in the United States, recently won approval from the Iowa Utilities Board to add 1,000 megawatts more wind capacity to the 1,350 megawatts it already has. A megawatt can serve between 300 and 700 homes.

“Iowa leads the nation in growing corn and could lead the nation in providing wind energy,” said Dean Crist, vice president for regulatory affairs for MidAmerican Energy.

The extra 1,000 megawatts would add to MidAmerican’s surplus electricity production, which at times exceeds by 40 percent the normal demand of its 770,000 customers in Iowa.

MidAmerican earns extra money by selling that surplus to other utilities, which enables MidAmerican to freeze its residential rates for electric customers in cities including Des Moines, Waterloo, Davenport, Iowa City, Fort Dodge, Sioux City and Council Bluffs, through the end of 2013.

MidAmerican, in partnership with American Electric Power of Columbus, Ohio, is in the early planning stages to propose a multistate transmission line from Iowa headed east.

Such a transmission line would be new for the utility industry in the United States, which unlike railroads, airlines and oil and gas pipelines has historically confined its grid infrastructures within city limits or state boundaries.

Iowa energy officials say they knew going in that persuading the rest of the country to help pay for a transmission line wouldn’t be easy.

Roya Stanley, director of the Iowa Office of Energy Independence and Gov. Chet Culver’s representative on multistate electricity issues, recently told a gathering of Iowa municipal utility officials that “there is growing resistance to a multistate transmission line.”

“It comes down to who pays for it,” Stanley said, recounting rising difficulties in getting interstate agreements on cost-sharing for a transmission project.
Focus remains on unwanted costs

Darrell Hanson, an Iowa Utilities Board member who works with fellow electricity regulators from other states, has encountered the same blowback.

“If the only issue was just physically building the line, that would be easy,” Hanson said. “The difficulty is in figuring out how to share the costs. Nobody can do it alone.”

All isn’t lost for Iowa wind. MidAmerican’s planning group for its proposed Electric Transmission America line includes partner American Electric Power, which operates utilities in Ohio, and Exelon Corp., which owns utilities in Chicago and Philadelphia.

The cost of a multistate transmission line from the Midwest to the East Coast is unknown, but estimates begin at $20 billion.

An early assumption has been that more than two dozen states would share the costs in a manner similar to the way the entire United States shared in the cost of building the interstate highway system a half-century ago.

But Bowles, the Massachusetts energy secretary, rejects the comparison of an electric transmission line to the interstate highway system.

“There was an immediate economic benefit to the interstates,” he said. “There is no economic benefit to a transmission line unless someone wants to buy electricity from it. Many states like ourselves plan to become self-sufficient in renewable energy.”

Inciteful repartee to follow, I need more tea and time!

Demand is down, down, down, though PJM is going to make us wait until March 11 to see the 2009 State of the Market Report for the full year… boooooooo-hisssssssssssssssssss.

But this little snippet did show up in a web update list:

Sent: Thur 02.04.2010 1:01 p.m.
Subject: 2011/2012 Second Incremental Auction Cancelled

Dear Members,

This is to inform PJM Market Participants that the RPM Second Incremental Auction for the 2011/2012 Delivery Year originally scheduled for July 12, 2010 has been cancelled. Through the 2011/2012 Delivery Year, Second Incremental Auctions are conducted only when there is an increase in the RTO’s unforced capacity obligation due to a load forecast increase. As the 2010 RTO peak load forecast for the 2011/2012 Delivery Year is lower than the peak load forecast used in the 2011/2012 Base Residual Auction, the 2011/2012 Second Incremental Auction is cancelled.

Please direct any questions to the RPM Hotline at rpm_hotline@pjm.com.

So the good news is that PJM is now admitting that “the 2010 RTP peak load forecast for the 2011/2012 Delivery Year is lower than the peak load forecast used in the 2011/2012 Base Residual Auction.” The bad news is that with the RPM auction canceled we will not have new numbers for energy efficiency and Semand Side Management, all those things that they are saying cannot possibly do the job that their planned pet transmission projects can.  Funny how that works.  And this is the kind of thing that needs to be very, very public — demand is so far down that it’s lower than their forecast used!  hee hee hee hee

I love it when the market decides!

This is one of those reports that I’m really looking forward to…

Oh my… danger — powerlines kill!

Authorities believe Wash. man electrocuted by urinating on downed power line after car crash

Associated Press

MONTESANO, Wash. - Authorities believe a Washington man was killed by accidentally urinating on a downed power line after a car crash.

Grays Harbor County sheriff’s Deputy Dave Pimentel said Monday 50-year-old Roy Messenger was not seriously hurt after he collided with a power pole Friday and called a relative to pull his car from a ditch.

However, family members found Messenger electrocuted when they arrived.

Pimentel says Messenger apparently urinated into a roadside ditch but didn’t see the live wire. The urine stream likely served as a conductor, allowing the electricity to reach his body.

Pimentel says there will be an autopsy but burn marks indicated the way the electricity traveled through Messenger’s body.