Big Stone is dead, dead, dead
November 2nd, 2009
Hot off the press from MDU — there’s contact info at the bottom.
DO SEND THEM CONDOLENCES AND A THANK YOU NOTE!!!
From MPR just now:
And a BSII Press Release found in the inbox:
November 2, 2009
Participating utilities announce wind-down of Big Stone II project
The participating utilities announced today that they will not build the Big Stone II Project, a planned 500-to-600-megawatt coal-fired power plant to be located near Milbank, South Dakota, and its associated transmission. The project required additional participants to move forward; however none have committed.
Big Stone II, a fully permitted project, had been determined to be the least-cost, environmentally sound baseload power plant for the project participants. The project’s high voltage transmission facilities were to be sized to also serve the region’s burgeoning wind energy development.
The Big Stone II Project participants were Central Minnesota Municipal Power Agency, Heartland Consumers Power District, Missouri River Energy Services and Montana-Dakota Utilities Co.
For information specific to each company, contact:
Mark Hanson, Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., 701-530-1093 or mark.hanson@mduresources.com.
Bill Radio, Missouri River Energy Services, 605-731-2522 or billr@mrenergy.com.
Russ Olson, Heartland Consumers Power District, 605-256-6536 or rolson@hcpd.com.
Lori Frisk-Thompson, Central Minnesota Municipal Power Agency, 507-526-2193 or lorift@cmmpa.org.
LS Power’s Sunrise River Energy in the news
November 2nd, 2009
Oct 19 Chisago County meeting re: LS Power Sunrise River Energy Station
How odd… it’s in both STrib and StPPP today… so comment opportunities abound!
Here’s the story from Dennis Lien:
Skeptics question Chisago power plant
Residents fear water pollution, say plans are too vague
By Dennis Lien
Updated: 11/01/2009 11:22:19 PM CSTBut critics have other concerns about what could be the largest natural-gas plant in the state.
And from the STrib’s Tom Meersman:
Protected aquifer feared at risk
It’s about appropriate land use
It can’t be used for industrial purposes in the seven-county metro area.
Others expressed doubts about the company’s change of mind on groundwater use.
Rob Kravitz lives about 2 miles from the site and opposes the plant, period.
PUC’s wind turbine noise docket in the news
August 4th, 2009
It’s out today, Dan Gunderson at MPR has done an extensive piece on the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission “investigation” of wind turbine noise and health impacts, looking at, per the PUC:
The Commission is gathering information to determine if current permit conditions on setbacks remain appropriate and reasonable.
PUC - Notice WITH SERVICE LIST
Here’s the audio — full text is way below:
What concerns me is that, again, they only gave notice of this docket to the wind industry, and not the people intervening or commenting in PUC wind dockets who raised this issue in the first place, and my comment on that to the PUC, urging them t expand the Notice:
Overland Comments - Request for Broader Distribution of Notice
To see the PUC’s wind turbine setback docket, go to www.puc.state.mn.us, click “eDockets” on lower right, and search for docket 09-845.
And here’s the MPR piece in writing:
Wind turbine noise concerns prompt investigation
by Dan Gunderson, Minnesota Public RadioIn Minnesota, those complaints prompted the Public Utilities Commission to investigate.
Soon after they moved in, dozens of wind turbines sprouted in a neighbor’s nearby field.
IGCC - a bad idea goes to Mississippi
July 20th, 2009
and Mississippi’s PSC says… “Ummmmm… not so fast…”
It’s Mississippi Power’s Kemper County IGCC project. I’ve had a few interesting conversations about this project this morning, and some productive googling time. Like WOW, can you believe what they’re trying to do?
Mississippi Power had the audacity to think it could get “construction work in progress” rate recovery, and boost the rates immediately if not sooner to pull the $$$ out of ratepayer pockets to build this boondoggle. And there’s where the Mississippi PSC comes in, saying, “Ummmmmmm, no, not so fast!” (perhaps it was “STOP — THIEF!!!!”)
For the Mississippi PSC docket on this, go here:
And there’s DOE involvement - and EIS
And of course Richard Hargis is on this one too… I’ve fired off an email to him about the status.
Mississippi Power says that they plan to build a plant with CO2 capture and sequestration!?!?! What a farce — it’s not been done, can’t be done, and even if it could, THAT WOULD REDUCE PLANT OUTPUT BY HOW MUCH? Give me a break.
Let’s see, they say $2.2 billion cost, well, that might build about 80% of the plant, add another $440 million to complete it, add another $1 billion OR MORE for capture, and that doesn’t even include CO2 sequestration, transport pipeline and pressurization stations and place to store it, AND THEN THERE’S LIABILITY COVERAGE FOR CO2 RELEASES… and that doesn’t even include the 25-40% loss of efficiency for capture, transport and repressurization and storage FOREVER… How dare they spout this unadulterated bullshit…
Is this a Conoco Phillips project, or ??? I’ll dig around to see what I can see… Nope, it says “KBR” and based on some plant in Wilsonville, Alabama… again, I’ll do some digging.
Oh my, it’s not a power plant, it’s:
The Power Systems Development Facility in Wilsonville, Alabama
Here we go, from McMillan Scott:
READ THAT POWER POINT — it says TWO GASIFIERS!!! TWO, ONLY TWO!!! hee hee hee hee, WHERE’S THE SPARE GASIFIER?!?!?!
And here’s a great report in the Jackson Free Press (when was the last time you heard about parasitic load in any newspaper?!?! Very well done!!!)
PSC Creates New Hurdles for Coal-Burning Plant
Mississippi Power wants the PSC to move faster to approve a new plant.
PEPCO may not finance MAPP transmission line
June 27th, 2009
And that’s a good thing, because their SEC filings show that demand is down from 2007-2007, as it is everywhere. It’s looking like utilities are unable to sustain their drive for long distance market dispatch, and if this trend is the reality, and their stock continues to be in the toilet, they can’t build their transmission dream — this is good news! Chalk up one for the economic depression!
All of us participating in the Delmarva Power IRP have to make sure the PSC knows about the tanked market, after all, they’re addressing how Delmarva Power will fulfill its demand, and for sure we don’t need new generation (need different generation, to be sure) or any transmission. As to needing different generation, it’s particularly important at this time to attach a requirement to SHUT DOWN FOSSIL FUEL to any RES. Without that, they’ll just sell it elsewhere, and we won’t gain anything.
Here’s one example of how the economy can have an impact on electric infrastructure and market. Hot off the press — PEPCO may not be selling stock to finance projects, and the biggest project they’re looking at is the much-detested Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway, electric transmission known as the MAPP line.
And remember, not that long ago, PJM cancelled the part from Indian River to Salem, NJ, at the Salem & Hope Creek nuclear plants. Here’s what it looks like now, supposedly:
HA! THEIR MAPS DON’T EVEN REFLECT THAT CHANGE!!
The Press Release says:
According to Gausman, PJM has also reviewed the need for the section of the line that would run from Delmarva Power’s Indian River substation near Millsboro, Del., to Salem, N.J., and has decided to move this portion of the line into its “continuing study” category. This means that the reconfigured MAPP line will now extend approximately 150 miles from northern Virginia, across southern Maryland and the Chesapeake Bay, and terminate at Indian River. The change would likely reduce the total project cost from $1.4 billion to $1.2 billion.
(Emphasis added). Hee hee hee hee hee — “… terminate at Indian River.” No Indian River to Salem, NJ section. Cutting a section out is just one more step to tanking the project. What’s the point of a radial line to Indian River? Some would say that “hey, there’s transmission there, it’s not a radial line,” but there’s NOT transmission there to facilitate the bulk power transfers coming in on a 500kV line. The system there is comparatively VERY low voltage. Others would note that the Indian River plant has two units shutting down, but folks, they’re the smallest units, totalling about 150MW or so, that will not make a big electrical difference, though it has a significant impact on our ability to breathe the air in southern Delaware! Taking the small Indian River units most probably means that Bluewater Wind should have no problem interconnecting — lets see the interconnection studies with Indian River units off line!
Anyway, here’s the poop — and look at the PEPCO price: $13.39, about half of what it was a year ago ($26.25) (for month, YTD, year and 5 year, go HERE) If you look at the 5 year trend, it’s the same reflected in Xcel’s demand — everything goes south in 2007. THIS IS NOT A “BLIP” FROM LAST FALL’S CRASH, this is a 2 year, nearly 3 year trend. (For Xcel month, YTD, year and 5 year, go HERE).
From PEPCO’s 2008 SEC 10-K, here’s their 2007-2008 energy delivery numbers (DOWN), regulated and default:
|
Regulated T&D Electric Sales (Gigawatt hours (GWh))
|
||||||||||
|
2008
|
2007
|
Change
|
||||||||
|
Residential
|
17,186
|
17,946
|
(760)
|
|||||||
|
Commercial
|
28,739
|
29,137
|
(398)
|
|||||||
|
Industrial
|
3,781
|
3,974
|
(193)
|
|||||||
|
Other
|
261
|
261
|
-
|
|||||||
|
Total Regulated T&D Electric Sales
|
49,967
|
51,318
|
(1,351)
|
|||||||
|
Default Electricity Supply Sales (GWh)
|
||||||||||
|
2008
|
2007
|
Change
|
||||||||
|
Residential
|
16,621
|
17,469
|
(848)
|
|||||||
|
Commercial
|
9,564
|
9,910
|
(346)
|
|||||||
|
Industrial
|
640
|
914
|
(274)
|
|||||||
|
Other
|
101
|
131
|
(30)
|
|||||||
|
Total Default Electricity Supply Sales
|
26,926
|
28,424
|
(1,498)
|
|||||||
Here’s PEPCO 2007-7008 SEC 10-K info, 2006-6007, regulated and default - these numbers should be the same for the same years, and they’re not, what does that mean:
|
Regulated T&D Electric Sales (GWh)
|
||||||||||
|
2007
|
2006
|
Change
|
||||||||
|
Residential
|
17,946
|
17,139
|
807
|
|||||||
|
Commercial
|
29,398
|
28,638
|
760
|
|||||||
|
Industrial
|
3,974
|
4,119
|
(145)
|
|||||||
|
Total Regulated T&D Electric Sales
|
51,318
|
49,896
|
1,422
|
|||||||
|
Default Electricity Supply Sales (GWh)
|
||||||||||
|
2007
|
2006
|
Change
|
||||||||
|
Residential
|
17,469
|
16,698
|
771
|
|||||||
|
Commercial
|
9,910
|
14,799
|
(4,889)
|
|||||||
|
Industrial
|
914
|
1,379
|
(465)
|
|||||||
|
Other
|
131
|
129
|
2
|
|||||||
|
Total Default Electricity Supply Sales
|
28,424
|
33,005
|
(4,581)
|
|||||||
Here’s the PEPCO 2006 SEC 10-K info, their 2005-2006 energy delivery numbers (DOWN), first regulated sales:
| Regulated T&D Electric Sales (gigawatt hours (Gwh)) | |||||||||||
|
2006 |
2005 |
Change |
|||||||||
| Residential |
17,139 |
18,045 |
(906) |
||||||||
| Commercial |
28,638 |
29,441 |
(803) |
||||||||
| Industrial |
4,119 |
4,288 |
(169) |
||||||||
| Total Regulated T&D Electric Sales |
49,896 |
51,774 |
(1,878) |
||||||||
| Default Electricity Supply Sales (Gwh) | |||||||||||
|
2006 |
2005 |
Change |
|||||||||
| Residential |
16,698 |
17,490 |
(792) |
||||||||
| Commercial |
14,799 |
15,020 |
(221) |
||||||||
| Industrial |
1,379 |
2,058 |
(679) |
||||||||
| Other |
129 |
157 |
(28) |
||||||||
| Total Default Electricity Supply Sales |
33,005 |
34,725 |
(1,720) |
||||||||
CLICK HERE - PEPCO’s SEC 10-K filings for lots of years to do your own looking!
From Bloomberg:
Pepco CFO May Postpone Investment to Avoid Share Sale
Pepco fell 3 cents to $13.39 in composite trading on the New York Stock Exchange.




