Legalectric

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:

Controversial power plant won’t be built

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.

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 CST

At first blush, a proposal for a large power plant in rural Chisago County would seem to have a lot going for it, including apparent need and general support from clean-energy interests.

But that doesn’t mean LS Power’s natural gas-fired project is racing along. Far from it. Many county residents, skeptical of the company’s assertions and irked by what they consider a secretive approach, don’t like it one bit.

“Whether they are for it or against it, people in this area have a right to know what this is about,” said Joyce Marienfeld, a member of an opposition group called Friends of the Sunrise River. “This has been real slippery — just not right.”

County residents have been on edge since earlier this year when the East Coast power plant builder offered what residents viewed as a vague proposal to build a 780-megawatt power plant on a 40-acre site northwest of Lindstrom, 30 miles north of St. Paul. The plant, expected to cost $300 million to $500 million, would use low-polluting natural gas to supplement the state’s growing wind industry by operating when wind power isn’t available or during periods of peak demand.

The Legislature quickly approved tax breaks similar to those given to other plants, provided local governments follow suit. If that happens, the project would be free to seek various air and water permits and Public Utilities Commission approval.

Critics soon objected, especially over plans to use 2 million gallons of groundwater a
Advertisement
Quantcast
day and to discharge that water into the nearby Sunrise River, which empties into the nationally protected St. Croix River.

Earlier this month, the company backed off that approach, opting instead to use treated water from two area wastewater treatment plants.

Opponents, however, continue to maintain the proposal is heavy on general concepts and light on specifics.

“It’s kind of common sense to judge what they are actually planning on doing, instead of vague things on paper,” said state Rep. Jeremy Kalin, DFL-Lindstrom. “We can’t do that.”

Blake Wheatley, LS Power’s assistant vice president, promised more detail will follow, once lingering property tax issues are addressed locally.

“In order for us to be comfortable spending many hundreds of thousands of dollars doing studies, we really need some level of comfort that we can put that economic albatross at bay,” he said.

But critics have other concerns about what could be the largest natural-gas plant in the state.

They say it doesn’t fit into the rural, agricultural landscape and is just a half-mile from the popular Carlos Avery State Wildlife Management Area. Moreover, they fear increased truck traffic, annoying plant lights and, despite company denials, new power lines. Pollution, they said, could filter through the sandy soil into the Mt. Simon-Hinckley aquifer or get to the Sunrise River.

Building in an already zoned industrial park would be more appropriate, according to Marienfeld, who lives three miles from the proposed site.

Wheatley said the company wants to build the plant to fill a demand for electrical power in Minnesota and the Upper Midwest. He said a “great portion” of the power would be sold in Minnesota, with some going to other states.

LS Power has been talking to state utilities about buying the power but hasn’t reached any agreements, he said. “If we can’t identify markets, we are not going forward with it,” he said, adding that discussions with Minnesota utilities “have been very, very positive.”

Placing the plant near the existing Chisago County power substation eliminates the need for additional transmission lines, according to Wheatley. “That substation is one of the biggest, if not the largest, in the state of Minnesota,” he said.

The plant, he said, would not be as visually intrusive as many people fear. “The rural way of life they are used to will continue,” he said.

If everything goes according to plan, Wheatley said, construction would start in 2011, and the plant would open a couple of years later.

Without addressing the proposal’s specifics, St. Paul-based Fresh Energy said it likes the idea of natural gas being used to fill gaps in wind power.

“It’s important for Minnesota to add a modest amount of new high-efficiency, low-emission natural gas power stations to be available when renewable energy sources like solar and wind need a bit of help,” said Michael Noble, its executive director. “Remember that Minnesota is on course to add $10 billion in wind power this next decade.”

Earlier this month, the state Office of Energy Security released a study that said the state needs more natural gas-fired power plants over the next 15 years to provide intermittent and peak power upon demand.

Asked about the LS Power proposal, Energy Security director Bill Glahn said, “It would definitely be most welcome to help us meet our needs for power in the coming years.”

“That report is so far off it’s scary,” responded Carol Overland, an attorney for opposition group Concerned River Valley Citizens. “They are using outdated information.”

Before the Public Utilities Commission takes up the proposal, the Lent Township and Chisago County boards must approve development agreements. Kalin recently urged them to include six conditions, such as a ban on groundwater use and new transmission lines.

“None of them have flagged their intentions,” County Administrator John Moosey said of the five county commissioners. “This is just a great microcosm of local government. Both sides have very strong points, and there are benefits to each.”

And from the STrib’s Tom Meersman:

Protected aquifer feared at risk

By TOM MEERSMAN, Star Tribune

It’s about appropriate land use

Many of us who live near the proposed LS Power Plant are not against power plants in general or the jobs that building them create. We are … read more against a New Jersey-based private equity investment firm, taking our natural resources, spoiling our rural way of life, and getting a $8-9 Million/year tax break to boot. The power is not needed locally. This is not just a peaker plant to offset wind power, when the wind isn’t blowing. It’s a huge (855MW)albatross stuck in the middle of a residential, agricultural area - in direct opposition to the Township and County Comprehansive Land Use plans. Go to LS Power’s website and take a look at what an equivalent plnat looks like. Build the power plant where it belongs - in an industrial area

Pooling underneath the Twin Cities area is drinking water so old and pristine that it’s protected by state law.

It can’t be used for industrial purposes in the seven-county metro area.

But the rules that protect the 900-foot-deep Mount Simon-Hinckley aquifer in the metro don’t apply to Chisago County, where LS Power wants to build a $300 million to $500 million power plant.

The New Jersey-based company’s proposal to use groundwater from the aquifer has intensified opposition to the plant and has raised interest in changing the law to put the water off-limits.

“It is certainly a last-resort aquifer,” said Chris Elvrum, manager of water supply planning for the Metropolitan Council. “It is used by some municipalities when there’s no readily available other source, and only for potable use.”

Elvrum said age-dated samples show that the water ranges from 1,000 to 35,000 years old. Depending on where it is withdrawn, it can take hundreds of years to recharge.

Since the 1989 law forbidding its use for industrial purposes in the metro area, that region has expanded: the U.S. Census Bureau now defines the metropolitan statistical area as 13 counties, including Chisago and several others not part of the original seven-county list.

A change in plans

LS Power knew of Mount Simon’s importance, said D. Blake Wheatley, lead project developer for the company. But he said it proposed last summer to use the deeper water anyway, for fear of competing with any city and private wells that draw water from shallower aquifers. The proposal called for the plant to use water from one or two nearby sewage treatment plants and, if necessary, to supplement that with as much as 2 million gallons of groundwater per day, including some from Mount Simon.

However, the company recently abruptly changed direction; Wheatley said it will not use any groundwater.

“We’re going to make do with the water that we have” from the North Branch and Chisago Lakes joint sewage treatment plants, he said.

The company also abandoned plans to discharge 1 million gallons of water a day from the plant into a tributary of the Sunrise River, said Wheatley, and will develop a “zero-discharge liquid system.”

The decision stems from a change in the design of the natural-gas-fired plant, he said, not from citizen concerns.

Plant meeting draws 500

About 500 people attended a meeting last week to debate the proposal. Some said they supported the plant because it would generate tax revenue and construction jobs.

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.

“They’ve made concessions, at least on paper, regarding the water use issues,” he said. “My fear is that, after it’s built, they they’ll apply for groundwater permits anyway.”

Kravitz and others are also concerned that the 780-megawatt plant would require more high-voltage power lines in the area. The company denies that.

The proposed 40-acre site is less than a mile from a large electrical substation and within 5 miles of two interstate natural gas pipelines.

Friends of the Sunrise River, a citizens’ group opposed to the project, contends that it will lower property values, increase noise and traffic and conflict with the rural character of the county.

“If the truth were known, it would have more negatives than positives,” said Larry Baker, chairman of the group.

LS Power is only at the beginning of the project, Wheatley said, and hasn’t submitted a formal plan to regulators.

It is seeking a development agreement with the township board and Chisago County commissioners that pertains mainly to property tax exemptions that require local approval. Those decisions likely will be made in December, after which the company would begin pursuing required permits and approvals from state agencies.

Whatever happens next with the project, Rep. Jeremy Kalin, DFL-Lindstrom, said that he is determined to close the loophole that allows the Mount Simon aquifer to be tapped for multiple uses. Kalin said that he and Sen. Rick Olseen, DFL-Harris, who also represents the area, will introduce a bill next year to extend protection of the aquifer beyond the seven-county metro area.

“It takes dozens or hundreds of years for that water to filter down and to be pure and drinkable,” Kalin said. “We’re not going to just use it for cooling a power plant.”

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 Radio

August 4, 2009

Valley City, ND — Wind farms are rapidly expanding across the Midwest, and a growing number of residents who live near the wind turbines are complaining about noise.

In Minnesota, those complaints prompted the Public Utilities Commission to investigate.

When Dennis and Cathryn Stillings chose a place to retire, they were looking for solitude and quiet. So a couple of years ago, they bought a farmstead in the rolling hills of eastern North Dakota.

Soon after they moved in, dozens of wind turbines sprouted in a neighbor’s nearby field.

Dennis Stillings said he wasn’t bothered at first because he supported wind energy and he was told the turbines were quiet, no louder than 55 decibels.

“Which is about the same level as your refrigerator running, or the same level as my conversation right now,” Stillings said. “Well, if I was holding a conversation with someone in my living room and someone in the corner was sitting there going bop, bop, bop at 55 decibels, it would drive me nuts and I’d kick him out.”
Larger view
Wind turbines

The Stillings said what bothers them is the pulsating, low-frequency sound. They say it’s like a giant dishwasher, or a helicopter in the distance. Cathryn Stillings said there’s no escaping the sound and that she’s having trouble sleeping.

“It’s a duller sound in the house but it’s still out there,” she said. “You can hear it through the walls. It just kind of gets in your bones.”

The Stillings’ complaints are similar to cases popping up around the country in the past couple of years, as wind farm expansion moves closer to populated areas. Complaints include headaches, dizziness and trouble sleeping.

In Minnesota, a handful of groups have organized to demand tougher regulation. They want the state to require more distance between wind turbines and homes. A report by the Minnesota Department of Health concluded there are potential health concerns.

Read the rest of this entry »

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 Kemper County IGCC page here

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:

PSC Docket 2009-UA-14  — Mississippi Power IGCC

And there’s DOE involvement - and EIS

Notice of Intent to Prepare 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.

Here’s the page they say “CO2 capture and sequestration”

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.

Southern cancels IGCC plant in Florida

Oh my, it’s not a power plant, it’s:

The Power Systems Development Facility in Wilsonville, Alabama

“America’s Advanced Coal Research Center”

Here we go, from McMillan Scott:

Kemper County IGCC Project

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.

by Adam Lynch
June 11, 2009

The Mississippi Public Service Commission met last Friday to consider multiple motions submitted by Mississippi Power, the Sierra Club, Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood and others regarding Mississippi Power’s proposed coal-burning plant in Kemper County.

Mississippi Power filed a motion in January for the PSC to fast-forward deliberations on development of the $2.2 billion integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) power plant maintaining that federal money for the program comes with a ticking clock. The 582-megawatt plant will be a combination of lignite coalmine, a coal burner and a gas-powered processor, which dries out the low quality coal pulled from the lignite mine. (The net output of the plant may be reduced by as much as 100 megawatts due to the parasitic power required to dry lignite coal to a usable form.)

“This plant will diversify our fuel sources and will produce energy at lower and more stable costs than any other fossil fuel option,” said Anthony Topazi, Mississippi Power president and chief executive officer in a January statement. “By creating an additional fuel alternative—Mississippi lignite—this project creates significant energy cost reductions for our customers, such that over its life, the energy savings more than offset the cost of building the plant.”

Opposition to the plant, including environmental advocates the Sierra Club and senior citizen representative AARP, claim the plant could raise rate-payers’ utility bills by up to 15 percent.

The PSC denied motions filed by competing power suppliers Magnolia Energy and Entegra Power Group, and the state attorney general motion to suspend their review of Mississippi Power’s request to build the plant, according to The Clarion-Ledger. The denials were only a portion of the whole story, however.

Read the rest of this entry »

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!!

MAPP - PEPCO-PJM Press Release May 19, 2009

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:

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:

Here’s the PEPCO 2006 SEC 10-K info, their 2005-2006 energy delivery numbers (DOWN), first regulated sales:

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

By Katarzyna Klimasinska

June 26 (Bloomberg) — Pepco Holdings Inc.’s new chief financial officer, Anthony Kamerick, is considering postponing some investments beyond 2010 to prevent selling shares below book value.

Pepco, the owner of Washington’s electric utility, currently plans about $1 billion in total capital projects for 2010, mainly on the Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway transmission line and smart grid, Kamerick said. The completion of the transmission line, also known as MAPP, has already been delayed by a year.

“We have to balance, obviously, the need to make sure our system is safe and reliable for the customers,” Kamerick said in a telephone interview yesterday from Washington, where the company is based. “It’s a delicate balance.”

MAPP is scheduled to start service in June 2014 and will run from northern Virginia, across southern Maryland and Chesapeake Bay, to Indian River, Delaware.

Smart grids will be able to detect power failures and automatically isolate them, increasing the reliability of the power system, according to Pepco.

Pepco sold shares at $16.50 each in November and has had a 25 percent decline so far this year. The current price represents 72 percent of book value, or assets minus liabilities, per share, according to a Bloomberg calculation from company data.

Pepco fell 3 cents to $13.39 in composite trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

Kamerick replaced Paul Barry, who resigned, on June 12. He has worked for Pepco and its predecessor, Potomac Electric Power Co., since 1970, most recently as chief regulatory officer.