Legalectric

.

Yes, indeed, PSEG is making things work for us…

PSEG has announced through its 2Q report that the Susquehanna-Roseland transmission line will be delayed until at least 2015.  Just like the Brookings line part of CapX 2020!  Funny how that works.

PSEG - 2nd Quarter - Press Release

Here’s what they said in this about D-E-L-A-Y of the Susquehanna-Roseland transmission line - two little snippets:

Ralph Izzo indicated that PSE&G has notified the PJM Interconnection that the in-service date for the eastern portion of the Susquehanna-Roseland transmission line has been delayed by 2 years to 2014 with the in-service date for the western portion of the line delayed until 2015. He added, “We are disappointed by the delay, but look forward to meeting the region’s reliability requirements in partnership with our regulators and PJM.”  The delays are due to on-going environmental permit reviews.
…

PSE&G notified PJM that it has not obtained certain environmental approvals that are required for completion of the Eastern and Western segments of the Susquehanna – Roseland transmission line. Consequently, at this time, we do not expect the Eastern portion of the line to be in service before June 2014, and we do not expect the Western portion to be in service before June 2015.

You can learn more about the Susquehanna-Roseland transmission project at www.stopthelines.com!

Interesting 2Q report, some pretty juicy dry numbers here, look how far down their net income was, and look at how their bottom line recovered — it’s those “excluded items” that make the difference:

As Business Week notes:

PSEG 2Q profit falls 21.5 percent

It’s hard to type that headline without two or three exclamation points!!!

Here’s the report from the Star-Ledger:

PSE&G delays construction of controversial Susquehanna-Roseland power line

Published: Friday, July 30, 2010, 4:14 PM
Brian T. Murray/The Star-Ledger

Public Service Electric & Gas announced this morning a three-year delay in completing its controversial Susquehanna-Roseland transmission lines, which will cut across New Jersey’s protected, water-rich Highlands.

PSE&G broke the news in its second-quarterly earnings report, explaining that obtaining environmental approvals has taken longer than anticipated. The announcement came just days after the state Department of Environmental Protection found the company’s wetlands permit applications incomplete.

Now, the $750 million power project the company hoped to complete by 2012 will not be done until 2015.

The New Jersey Highlands Coalition and the New Jersey chapter of the Sierra Club, two groups opposed to the project, said it may be the beginning of the end for the power line. But PSE&G said it plans to move forward, contending the power lines are needed to prevent blackouts and keep the region’s power grid reliable.

“We are disappointed by the delay, but we are going to work with the regulators. … We are still committed to constructing the line. It’s just going to be delayed,” said PSE&G spokeswoman Deann Muzikar.

Already approved by the state Board of Public Utilities and the New Jersey Highlands Council, the project involves a 500,000-volt transmission line along a 146-mile route between Pennsylvania and northern New Jersey and erecting 500-kilovolt transmission towers along a path where smaller, 230-kilovolt towers already exist. The main hurdle has been the National Park Service, which must approve a western leg of the line to run through the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, Middle Delaware National Scenic and Recreational River and the Appalachian National Scenic Trail.

PSE&G split the project into two segments earlier this year, hoping to at least begin construction this summer on an eastern leg between Hopatcong in Sussex County and Roseland in Essex County. But that strategy caused trouble for its wetlands permit reviews by the DEP, which noted the BPU had approved the project in one piece, not in a bifurcated process.

Additionally, the National Park Service has stood firm on its plan to delay action until 2012, as it holds public hearings and considered alternative routes for the line. Three hearings are scheduled for Aug. 17 through Aug. 19 in Pennsylvania and Sussex County.

Environmental groups, contending the project will ruin sensitive land and promote polluting, coal-generated electrical plants in the west, applauded the park service for its careful approach.

“PSE&G has been playing a high-stakes game of chicken with the public and regulators, whom they are now blaming for their not getting their permits on a fast track. This doesn’t surprise us, considering the vast environmental and scenic damage that will be imposed on the Highlands for this risky, ill-conceived, and expensive project,” said Julia Somers of the Highlands Coalition.

Fibrowatt in the Wall Street Journal?

I would think that Minnesota’s experience with burning chicken shit would wake up the world.  How is it that so many states had the sense to run Fibrowatt right out of town, Alan Muller & Green Delaware led the charge in Delaware, and just recently, Fibrowatt was run out of North Carolina.  He’s been digging into their file at the MPCA, it’s intense, he spent a LOT of time in the basement file room, got piles of papers and a disc or two, and he got a copy of the agreement after it came out:

MPCA-Fibrominn Stipulation Agreement

FYI, here’s the PPA from November 2000 - I believe it’s been ratcheted up since:

Fibrominn PPA- November 2000

To review the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission file on Fibrominn go to www.puc.state.mn.us and “Search eDockets” and search for docket “00-1169.”   The compliance filings are redacted, so the comparisons between Fibrominn, Laurentian, and District Energy in the most recent filing that would be so enlightening,  isn’t… DRAT!

What’s Minnesota’s experience with Fibrowatt/Fibrominn:

Sunday, December 20, 2009 6:00 PM

Fibrominn Power Plant Cited for Alleged Air Emissions Violations

Contact: Forrest Peterson, 320-441-6972 Willmar, Minn. — The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and Fibrominn of Benson reached an agreement recently resolving the company’s past failure to comply with state air-quality rules and permit conditions. Air emission violations occurring since 2007 resulted in a $65,000 penalty, and corrective actions including the installation of a new sulfur dioxide monitor at a minimum cost of $80,000. Fibrominn began operation in May 2007 burning primarily turkey litter to generate electricity. Since the start of operations, the facility has experienced numerous violations of its permit. The settlement addresses violations of late report submittals, failed performance test, and excess nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide emissions. The company also failed to self-report deviations that occurred during operation of the facility’s poultry litter-fired boiler. Fibrominn has since conducted the performance test and submitted a testing frequency plan, a continuous opacity monitor/continuous emissions monitor downtime elimination report, a pressure drop limit, a relative accuracy test audit test plan, a hydrochloric acid correlation curve and a permit compliance checklist. Minnesota law requires owners and operators of facilities with the potential to release air pollutants to have MPCA permits. Facilities must also carefully monitor and maintain equipment because emissions exceeding state standards can degrade air quality. The MPCA offers outreach and training to help facilities meet their permit requirements. For more information on air quality permits and emission standards, call Jennifer Lovett, MPCA air quality inspector, at 651-757-2538 or 1-800-657-3864. A stipulation agreement such as this is one of the tools used to achieve compliance with environmental laws. When calculating penalties, the MPCA takes into account how seriously the violation affected the environment, whether it is a first-time or repeat violation and how promptly the violation was reported to appropriate authorities. It also attempts to recover the calculated economic benefit gained by failure to comply with environmental laws in a timely manner. For a comprehensive list of enforcement actions by the MPCA, go to the agency’s Web site at www.pca.state.mn.us/newscenter/enforcement.html.

Here’s a link to Jim Turner’s blog digging into it when confronted with a proposal nearby in Page County, VA:

A Summary of Fibrowatt Posts

Where they were run out again:

Board says “Thanks, but no thanks”

But then we have yahoos like Delaware’s Senator Carper who just can’t seem to bend over far enough despite so much evidence on what a piss-poor idea poop power is:

Carper waste-to-energy proposal wins key vote

So what’s Fibrowatt up to?

Back to the beginning, the article about Fibrowatt in today’s Wall Street Journal that means Fibrowatt is gearing up for another assault on some unsuspecting or uncaring state, with this about their plant here in Minnesota:

Fibrowatt’s vice president for public and environmental affairs, Terry Walmsley, says sound combustion practices and pollution-control systems keep carbon-monoxide and sulfur-dioxide emissions at safe levels. But in December, Minnesota’s environmental agency, citing “numerous” permit violations, fined Fibrowatt $65,000 and ordered it to upgrade the sulfur-dioxide monitor at its Minnesota plant. Mr. Walmsley says the plant’s recent report to state regulators showed pollutants in 2009 were well below allowable limits.

Here’s the full article:

JULY 11, 2010

Looking to Litter

Energy Company Sees a Future in Chicken Manure

By ANN CARRNS

Poultry farms in the U.S. generate roughly 17 million tons of chicken manure annually, creating a huge disposal problem. Some energy researchers believe they have a solution: use that manure to create electricity.

Many farmers use chicken litter—a mixture of manure and bedding—as a fertilizer, either spreading it on their own croplands or selling it to other growers. But the litter increasingly is being blamed for phosphorus-laden runoff that chokes waterways in heavy poultry-producing areas, and environmentalists are pushing the federal government to set limits on its use.

Read the rest of this entry »

You know life is good in Minnesota when the Supreme Court slaps The Green Chameleon, Gov. Tim Pawlenty!

(FYI, it’s been a busy week in CapX 2020 transmission line land, the scoping hearings, today is Cannon Falls.  Check it out on www.nocapx2020.info)

Here’s the decision:

Supreme Court Unallotment Decision

In short:

In the context of this limited constitutional grant of gubernatorial authority with regard to appropriations, we cannot conclude that the Legislature intended to authorize the executive branch to use the unallotment process to balance the budget for an entire biennium when balanced spending and revenue legislation has not been initially agreed upon by the Legislature and the Governor. Instead, we conclude that the Legislature intended the unallotment authority to serve the more narrow purpose of providing a mechanism by which the executive branch could address unanticipated deficits that occur after a balanced budget has previously been enacted.

Xcel Energy’’s Hiawatha Transmission Project is sticking in my craw again.  I’m having one of those “Xcel is evil” kind of days.  Xcel is hiding reliability information under a claim of “Security.”  How absurd can they get?  Don’t they get that if I was going to blow up substations, a) I don’t need their stupid info to do it, and b) I would have done it a long time ago?  Earth to Mars, that’s not my M.O.  But noooooooooo…

I’ve been looking at Xcel’s SAIDI, SAIFI and CAIDI distribution reliability reports, one of the things I’m happiest about in the 2001 legislative session.  Minn. Stat. 216B.029. Why?  Because Xcel’s Scott Zima testified at the public hearing for the Hiawatha Transmission Line Project that the claimed “reliability” problems did not show up in their SAIDI, SAIFI and CAIDI reports.  WAS ANYONE LISTENING?

What is SAIDI, SAIFI and CAIDI?  They’re distribution reliability indices.  Here are definitions stolen from Rochester Public Utilities 2009 Electric System Engineering & Operations Report:

• SYSTEM AVERAGE INTERRUPTION DURATION INDEX – SAIDI

SAIDI is defined as the average duration of interruptions for customers served during a specified time period.  Although similar to CAIDI, the average number of customers served is used instead of number of customers affected.

The unit of SAIDI is minutes.  A common usage of SAIDI is: “If all the customers on the distribution system were without power the same amount of time, they would have been out for _________ minutes”.

• SYSTEM AVERAGE INTERRUPTION FREQUENCY INDEX – SAIFI

SAIFI described the average number of times that a customer’s power is interrupted during a specified time period.  “SAIFI-short” is calculated using the number of customers affected by momentary interruptions (such as brief breaker or recloser operations).  “SAIFI-long” is calculated using the number of customers affected by sustained interruptions.

The units for SAIFI are “interruptions per customer”.  A common usage of SAIFI is: “On the average, customers on the distribution system experienced _______ interruptions”.

• CUSTOMER AVERAGE INTERRUPTION DURATION INDEX – CAIDI

CAIDI is the weighted average length of an interruption for customers affected during a specified time period.

The unit of CAIDI is minutes.  A common usage of CAIDI is:  “The average customer that experiences an outage on the distribution system is out for ___________ minutes.”

Here’s some background info about SAIDI, SAIFI and CAIDI reports from Edison Institute:

State of Distribution Reliability - 2005

Here’s the Minnesota rule about reporting SAIDI, SAIFI and CAIDI:

7826.0500 RELIABILITY REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

Subpart 1. Annual reporting requirements.

On or before April 1 of each year, each utility shall file a report on its reliability performance during the last calendar year. This report shall include at least the following information:

A. the utility’s SAIDI for the calendar year, by work center and for its assigned service area as a whole;
B. the utility’s SAIFI for the calendar year, by work center and for its assigned service area as a whole;
C. the utility’s CAIDI for the calendar year, by work center and for its assigned service area as a whole;
D. an explanation of how the utility normalizes its reliability data to account for major storms;
E. an action plan for remedying any failure to comply with the reliability standards set forth in part 7826.0600 or an explanation as to why noncompliance was unavoidable under the circumstances;
F. to the extent feasible, a report on each interruption of a bulk power supply facility during the calendar year, including the reasons for interruption, duration of interruption, and any remedial steps that have been taken or will be taken to prevent future interruption;
G. a copy of each report filed under part 7826.0700;
H. to the extent technically feasible, circuit interruption data, including identifying the worst performing circuit in each work center, stating the criteria the utility used to identify the worst performing circuit, stating the circuit’s SAIDI, SAIFI, and CAIDI, explaining the reasons that the circuit’s performance is in last place, and describing any operational changes the utility has made, is considering, or intends to make to improve its performance;
I. data on all known instances in which nominal electric service voltages on the utility’s side of the meter did not meet the standards of the American National Standards Institute for nominal system voltages greater or less than voltage range B;
J. data on staffing levels at each work center, including the number of full-time equivalent positions held by field employees responsible for responding to trouble and for the operation and maintenance of distribution lines; and
K. any other information the utility considers relevant in evaluating its reliability performance over the calendar year.

Subp. 2. Initial reporting requirements.

By March 30, 2003, each utility shall file its SAIDI, SAIFI, and CAIDI for each of the past five calendar years, by work center and for its assigned service area as a whole. If this information is not available, the utility shall file an explanation of how it has been tracking reliability for the past five years, together with reliability data for that period of time. If the utility has implemented a new reliability tracking system that makes comparisons between historical data and current data unreliable, the utility shall explain this situation in its filing.

Statutory Authority: MS s 216B.81

Xcel has to file these reports annually.  And since Xcel’s Mr. Zima’s testimony that the reliability problems they claim as the basis for need for the Hiawatha Project are NOT reflected in the SAIDI, SAIFI and CAIDI reports (WAS ANYONE LISTENING?), I spent some time looking at the annual reports filed this year:

Xcel’s Initial Filing - Docket 10-310

Xcel’s Initial Filing - Docket 10-310 - Attachment D - Part 1

Xcel’s Initial Filing - Docket 10-310 - Attachment D - Part 2

And there’s another older docket where similar information was recently filed:

Xcel’s Annual Filing - 02-2034 - Part 1

Xcel’s Annual Filing - 02-2034 - Part 2

Xcel’s Annual Filing - 02-2034 - Part 3

To search these dockets,go to www.puc.state.mn.us and click on “Search eDockets” and then plug in the docket numbers.

And here’s an example of what’s wrong with this picture - look at the crudely whited-out Feeder Line column:

Who cares?  Well, I do… why?  Because when they say that the distribution system is such a problem that they need a big honkin’ shiny new transmission line, and then one of their engineers testifies that this distribution “reliability problem” they’re whining about and inflicting an oversized transmission “solution” on a community about ISN’T showing up in the SAIDI, SAIFI and CAIDI distribution reliability reports, that’s a problem.  IS ANYONE TRACKING THIS?  It’s not rocket science, it’s basic vetting of their claims!

Looking at their letter in the filing in Docket 02-2034, there’s this amazing statement:

Security Data

The raw reliability data provided with this filing includes “security data” as
defined by Minn. Stat. § 13.37, subd. 1(a). Xcel Energy believes that some of the
raw data on the disks and/or that has been eFiled could be manipulated to reveal
the location and size of certain facilities that have been summarized in the
Monthly Report. The public disclosure or use of this information creates an
unacceptable risk that those who want to disrupt the electrical grid for political
or other reasons may learn which facilities to target to create the greatest
disruption. For this reason, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 13.37, subd. 2, we have
excised this data from the public version of our filing.

p. 5,  Xcel’s Annual Filing - 02-2034 - Part I (emphasis added).

Excuuuuuse me?

The public disclosure or use of this information creates an unacceptable risk that those who want to disrupt the electrical grid for political or other reasons may learn which facilities to target to create the greatest disruption.

What a load o’ crap. It is so illogical — those they’re having problems with aren’t necessarily, and probably just AREN’T, the ones to target to create the greatest disruption!

So I calls up Xcel, I do… and leave a message with Bria Shea because Jody Londo who signed the cover letter with the “Security” note was not in, explaining what info in what dockets I’m looking for and that I’m wanting to sign a confidentiality agreement to get it.

But noooooooooooo, guess again.  I get a call back from someone in “Legal” (I didn’t know they had an Illegal department) and here they are making a bogus argument about PUBLIC disclosure, and I’m asking for disclosure with a confidentiality agreement.  She wants to know if I’m a party, which I’m not, there are no parties in these dockets.  And even if a party, even with a confidentiality agreement, no, because it’s a SECURITY issue.  Oh, yeah… right… I’m a terrorist, wanting their “feeder line” information to take out electricity to some select target…  Guess she’s been talking to Mike Krikava, thinking only a terrorist would want to enter a 2005-MAPP map into a transmission proceeding.  That’s as wacky as a judge thinking it’s appropriate to do a transmission proceeding without a map entered in as evidence!

So now I get to “evaluate my options.”  It’s possible to do some triangulation with the reports and with the Attachments to Xcel’s Hiawatha Project Application, but… sigh… we all know what their concern is — that someone might read it and make some sense of it, and understand what it means.

Here is information about what generation projects are in line waiting for interconnection, and keep in mind that this is the MISO queue, and part of Illinois, and a big part of the load, is in PJM.

Here’s where you get the queue, and download to Excel and it’s sortable by state, by fuel
CLICK HERE FOR MISO QUEUE LINK – it’s updated regularly

Here are a couple of spreadsheets, the MISO queue downloaded in Excel as of March 25, 2010:

MISO Queue - ENTIRE - as of 3/25/10

Illinois Queue - as of 3/25/10

Just for yucks, look at the Illinois Queue - as of 3-25
Sheet 1 is everything listed for Illinois (they list by state, column H)
Sheet 2 is for generation interconnection of projects where fuel is identified as “wind”

THERE IS 9,853.3MW OF WIND IN QUEUE IN ILLINOIS.

The links in columns S, T & U are the transmission studies showing what can be connected, what the system can bear, and what improvements would need to be made.  Check them out for some fun reading.

Now, all of you thinking about transmission, and the moronic ox of “transmission for wind,” think about this please — why would anyone near Illinois, and why would anyone way out east, want to pay for wind generation from the Dakotas via transmission?  Buying the power generated in the Dakotas means that you’d have to pay for:

• Cost of Energy
• Capital cost of transmission
• Cost of transmission service
• Cost of line losses (energy lost in transit due to resistance — greater loss over greater distance)
• Cost of reactive power (transmission over long distances sucks reactive power out of the system and requires input for system stability)

As Minnesota Public Service Commissioner David Boyd noted when testifying before the Legislative Energy Commission last year (jointly with MOES and MISO!!!), he was talking about transmission, and he is Chair of Upper Midwest Transmission Development Initiative, a conflict if there ever were one.  Anyway, he said, and it was in writing on the slide:

We need a business plan.

That’s encouraging, because he apparently realizes that the above equation does not make any business sense.

That is the most important part of this issue — and the pell-mell hell-bent push for transmission.  WHY?

Why would anyone in Illinois want to pay when it’s right there in Illinois, and the offshore wind hasn’t even begun?  NREL has targeted Illinois as a wind production state, and… well.. DUH, what’s Chicago’s nickname after all???

Why would anyone out east want to pay for transmission of wind, on land a 41% capacity factor at best, to have it shipped 2,000 miles and pay BILLIONS to build that transmission, pay cost of transmission service, and pay cost of line losses, and cost of reactive power?