Legalectric

.

As inevitable as the tide, the Minnesota winter snows, mosquitos, death and taxes…  This is way too predictable!  Charlotte Neigh, of Citizens Against the Mesaba Project, is dead on again with her trajectory of Excelsior Energy’s weaseling out of their financial responsibilities in this Mesaba Project boondoggle.  A deadline is approaching where Excelsior Energy has to make a payment on its financing from the Iron Range Resources Board:

MCGP Exhibit 5023 - IRR & Excelsior Convertible Debenture Agreement

A little birdie just sent this, literally hours after Charlotte had mentioned that the next payment was coming due and wondering what they were going to pull this time to get out of it (it’s ALWAYS something):

Published August 18 2010

Excelsior asks for more time to repay Iron Range loans

Excelsior Energy’s plans to build a coal gasification power plant known as the Mesaba Energy project on the Iron Range have suffered numerous delays.

By: Steve Kuchera, Duluth News Tribune

The Iron Range Resources Board will consider a request Thursday to give Excelsior Energy more time to pay back nearly $9.5 million in loans.

Excelsior’s plans to build a coal gasification power plant known as the Mesaba Energy project on the Iron Range have suffered numerous delays.

“Development plans originally contemplated that the project would have been under construction prior to 2010 and repayment would have begun,” IRR Commissioner Sandy Layman wrote in a memo to board members requesting the extension of the loan and delay in interest payments. “Sufficient funds are not available to meet repayment requirements under the existing loan terms at this time.”

The IRR has two outstanding loans with Excelsior: one for $1.5 million approved in December 2001 and one for $8 million approved in June 2004. Excelsior has paid back $45,038 of the loans’ principal.

If approved, the new loan agreement will require annual principal payments of $100,000 due Dec. 31 beginning this year and running through 2017. Interest on timely payments will be figured at 5 percent for the preceding 12 months. With IRR approval, Excelsior can repay all outstanding principal before Dec. 31, 2017, at a reduced interest rate.

In exchange, Excelsior would agree to pay the IRR 5 percent of the proceeds from any sale of equity in the Mesaba Energy project in excess of Excelsior’s liabilities from the project.

There’s been change afoot as the facts of the infeasibility of CO2 capture and storage filters up to the higher regions of the cesspool, and as the financing nightmares and high capital costs of IGCC are paraded in public as the Indiana Duke IGCC project moves forward, and as, of course, the DOE’s EIS (here’s the DOE’s project page) for Excelsior Energy’s Mesaba Project drags on and on and on as the agency refuses, thankfully, to issue the Record of Decision on that… and slowly, painfully slowly, the truth about this IGCC pipedream is coming out.

A few telling tidbits, first, that they’ve given up on FutureGen IGCC, YEAAAAAAAAA:

DOE to provide $1B to revamped FutureGen

Katherine Ling, E&E reporter

The Energy Department today announced $1 billion in stimulus funding for a carbon capture and sequestration retrofit project it is labeling “FutureGen 2.0.”

The new project would retrofit a mothballed unit of an Ameren Energy Resources coal-fired power plant in Meredosia, Ill., to capture 90 percent of carbon dioxide and other pollutants using “oxy-combustion” technology, and then transport and sequester the CO2 in a regional storage site in Mattoon, Ill. The Mattoon location — the site of the original FutureGen project — would also house a training facility to teach oxy-combustion technology and retrofitting skills.

DOE is providing the $1 billion to the FutureGen Alliance, Ameren, Babcock & Wilcox and Air Liquide Process & Construction Inc. to develop the facility. The total cost of retrofitting the plant and building a “collection facility” for carbon dioxide, a training facility and CO2 pipelines will be about $1.13 billion in federal investment, with the expectation of up to $250 million in private investment, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) told reporters. Durbin has been a strong advocate for the project and repeatedly requested appropriations for it.

The project would be a significant change from the original FutureGen clean coal project announced by President George W. Bush and DOE in 2003. The original project supported by DOE and the FutureGen Alliance — a consortium of major coal and utility companies — aimed to build a new coal power plant on 444 acres in Mattoon that would use integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) technology, produce hydrogen and electricity, and capture and sequester CO2. Bush and then-Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman announced in 2008 that they were walking away from the project because of skyrocketing costs (Greenwire, June 12, 2009).

“Today’s announcement will help ensure the U.S. remains competitive in a carbon-constrained economy, creating jobs while reducing greenhouse gas pollution,” Energy Secretary Steven Chu said in a statement.

“This investment in the world’s first, commercial-scale, oxy-combustion power plant will help to open up the over $300 billion market for coal unit repowering and position the country as a leader in an important part of the global clean energy economy,” Chu added.

Oxy-combustion technology utilizes oxygen and CO2 instead of air to produce a concentrated CO2 stream for safe, permanent storage, DOE said. The technology also eliminates almost all of the mercury, SOx, NOx and particulate pollutants from plant emissions and could be potentially the lowest-cost approach to clean up existing coal-fired facilities and capture CO2 for geologic storage, according to the National Energy Technology Laboratory.

“It really didn’t make any sense to prove a technology that has already been proven” and move forward with IGCC, Durbin said. “I think this is going to build way beyond the original FutureGen concept.”

Durbin said the plan is to conduct engineering and land acquisition this fall and start on construction next spring.

The construction of the pipelines, facilities and retrofit will create about 900 jobs in southern Illinois and another 1,000 jobs at suppliers across the state, according to DOE.

This study was released last June, which shows that leakage of CO2 is a major problem, and which makes sequestration not feasible:

Long-term Effectiveness and Consequences of Carbon Dioxide Sequestration - Shaffer

Can’t have information like that getting out, so USA Today, of course, plays it with the following headline — DUH, of course critics pan the study — and this is the best they could come up with and it took two months!

Critics question carbon storage study

Worries about leaks from buried greenhouse gasses unearthed in a recent climate study look overblown, say critics.

Carbon sequestration, burying carbon dioxide in underground reservoirs, has emerged in recent years as one option for continuing to burn coal and other fossil fuels from power plants while addressing global warming. A 2004 Science journal report by Princeton researchers, for example, pointed to carbon sequestration as one strategy, among many, for humanity dodging the climate consequences of pumping global warming gases into the atmosphere.

A June Nature Geoscience report by Gary Shaffer of the Danish Center for Earth System Science, however found such carbon dioxide reservoirs would have to leak less than 1% per millennium to help the climate. “The dangers of carbon sequestration are real and the development of (carbon sequestration) should not be used as a way of justifying continued high fossil fuel emissions,” Shaffer said in a statement, alluding to a debate over whether “clean coal” power plants, which would store their greenhouse gas emissions underground, are a worthwhile goal for addressing climate change.

The study made news in climate circles, but some have since pointed out problems with Shaffer’s study. “I feel that this calculation adds little to the question of whether we should use carbon capture and storage,” wrote Nature assistant news editor Richard Van Noorden, suggesting that researchers need to figure out whether carbon can be safely pumped underground in the first place before worrying about 20,000 years from now, an end point of the study.

This month, an Energy Department analysis from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) of the study found “two deeply flawed assumptions which combine to grossly overstate the impacts associated with society using carbon dioxide capture and storage.”

First, the Nature Geoscience analysis suggested that carbon sequestration would be used to bury enough greenhouse gas to stave off all future climate warming. At best, carbon sequestration could store only about half of the carbon dioxide emissions responsible for global warming, notes the PNNL critique, and likely much less. And those carbon dioxide emissions are only partly responsible for projected future average surface temperature increases (anywhere from 2 to 11 degrees Fahrenheit depending on actual emissions, according to March National Research Council reports) alongside deforestation, and other greenhouse gasses:

“The assumption that (sequestration) is the only mitigation technology available is therefore highly questionable as a simplifying assumption as it leads to a dramatic overestimation of the amount of CO2 required to be sequestered. This significant overestimation of CO2 stored leads directly to the enormous volume of leakage and the resulting harm from imperfect retention reported by Shaffer.”

Second, the whole point of carbon sequestration underground is that the carbon dioxide would chemically bind to the rock layers there, preventing it from leaking, over decades and centuries.

“My study was not meant to propose if and how much (sequestration) to use but rather to look for the first time at the long term consequences of any leakage back to the atmosphere of any CO2 sequestered,” Shaffer says, by email. “My results show that high emissions with (sequestration) is not the same as low emissions without (sequestration) because of the leakage and its consequences.”

But the amount of sequestration contemplated in the study is “off by at least two orders of magnitude,” says MIT’s Ruben Juanes. “I’m as skeptical of carbon sequestration as anyone — the energy penalty it incurs is substantial — but the assumptions made in this (Nature Geoscience) paper are very hard to justify.”

Princeton’s Michael Celia, another sequestration researcher, notes that research already shows that 95% of any carbon injected into a reservoir would become trapped within 1,000 years. “In general I agree with the PNNL comments,” Celia says, by email.

Carbon sequestration critics often make over-sized assumptions about the technology to write it off, Juanes adds, such as objecting to the amount of pipe needed to immediately equip every existing power plant in the nation with it, making a one-time purchase out of an economic process that would play out over decades. “No single technology can immediately bridge the gaps in climate,” Juanes says.

By Dan Vergano

Word of today’s NYT article came in over the wire today, and it’s an interesting concept to deal with a very real problem, but not nearly enough!!!

Turbines to Loud?  Here, Take $5,000

My clients raising noise issues in wind project dockets at the PUC, including the “Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines” (09-845) have noted, “how will we be compensated for having to live with all this noise?”  In our capitalist culture, $$$ is compensation.  Offensive projects aren’t shut down, money is offered.

Minnesota Noise Rules don’t take into account ambient noise, they just set standards for noise, a binary limit on certain types of noise.

Minnesota’s legislature acknowledged that people don’t want to live by transmission lines, and enacted “Buy the Farm” (in full, below)which gives landowners facing a transmission line on their property can opt out, and force the utility to buy their full parcel, not just an easement.  Why not the same with wind projects?

Here’s the actual waiver that the wind developer is asking them to sign:

Noise Easement - North Hurlburt Wind, Caithness Corporation

And check this sentence, regarding the Compensation which is outlined in “Exhibit C” attached to the agreement:

Exhibit C shall be redacted from the recorded version of this agreement.

It seems to me that for the blanket “right to offend,” the offers reported are way too low, and waivers are one-sided.  From the article:

Ms. Pilz, the local Caithness representative, did not volunteer the information that Caithness offers people money to sign noise easements, though she eventually confirmed in an interview that it did. She also would not say how much money it offers, though several property owners said she had offered them $5,000.

“What we don’t do in general is change the market price for a waiver,” Ms. Pilz said. “That’s not fair.”

Some people who did not sign said that Ms. Pilz made them feel uncomfortable, that she talked about how much Shepherd’s Flat would benefit the struggling local economy and the nation’s energy goals, and that she suggested they were not thinking of the greater good if they refused.

Don’t change the market price?  Well, that says there’s a price and that there’s a market.  Caithness does not control the market — they’d better get clear on that right quick.  I’ would presume that as this becomes more of an issue the price will go up!  LET THE MARKET DECIDE!!!  I love it when that happens…

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Minnesota’s “Buy the Farm” law:

Minn. Stat. 216E.12, Subd. 4.Contiguous land.

When private real property that is an agricultural or nonagricultural homestead, nonhomestead agricultural land, rental residential property, and both commercial and noncommercial seasonal residential recreational property, as those terms are defined in section 273.13 is proposed to be acquired for the construction of a site or route for a high-voltage transmission line with a capacity of 200 kilovolts or more by eminent domain proceedings, the fee owner, or when applicable, the fee owner with the written consent of the contract for deed vendee, or the contract for deed vendee with the written consent of the fee owner, shall have the option to require the utility to condemn a fee interest in any amount of contiguous, commercially viable land which the owner or vendee wholly owns or has contracted to own in undivided fee and elects in writing to transfer to the utility within 60 days after receipt of the notice of the objects of the petition filed pursuant to section 117.055. Commercial viability shall be determined without regard to the presence of the utility route or site. The owner or, when applicable, the contract vendee shall have only one such option and may not expand or otherwise modify an election without the consent of the utility. The required acquisition of land pursuant to this subdivision shall be considered an acquisition for a public purpose and for use in the utility’s business, for purposes of chapter 117 and section 500.24, respectively; provided that a utility shall divest itself completely of all such lands used for farming or capable of being used for farming not later than the time it can receive the market value paid at the time of acquisition of lands less any diminution in value by reason of the presence of the utility route or site. Upon the owner’s election made under this subdivision, the easement interest over and adjacent to the lands designated by the owner to be acquired in fee, sought in the condemnation petition for a right-of-way for a high-voltage transmission line with a capacity of 200 kilovolts or more shall automatically be converted into a fee taking.

Well, a busy couple of days.  Mark Roberts, M.D., Exponent, toady for whatever project developer has the dough to pay him, made appearances in Goodhue, Minnesota for a hearing on the Goodhue Wind project, and in Wausau, Wisconsin, for an open house for a proposed biomass plant.  How much of a toady is he?

Dig this, he was “Corporate Medical Director of BP.”  Yes, our friend British Petroleum!

LINK TO PROFILE - MARK ROBERTS, M.D.

Wednesday, he was here in Goodhue, a puppet for the developers.

Here’s a link to the rest of the story: Goodhue Wind Truth

Thursday, he’s in Wausau, WI, a puppet for the developers.

Here’s a link to the rest of the story: Saving Our Air Resource, opponents of that Wausau biomass plant.

From Faux News 55:

Here’s from the Wasau Daily Herald:

Rothschild residents preview Biomass plant plans

By Kathleen Foody • Wausau Daily Herald • July 23, 2010

OTHSCHILD — The mood at the open house hosted by We Energies on Thursday about a proposed biomass plant in Rothschild was calm, though discussion about the project has become heated.

About 110 residents attended the sessions, one each in the afternoon and evening, at the Holiday Inn in Rothschild. Staff from We Energies and Domtar stood near displays and video monitors, explaining the plant plan and its effects on the community.

The proposal to burn woody biomass as fuel to create electricity for sale by the Milwaukee energy company and steam to power the Domtar paper mill is pending before the Wisconsin Public Service Commission. Since the plant was proposed in September 2009, We Energies has tried to get ahead of critics with direct mailings, community meetings and door-to-door consultations.

Many residents who attended the Thursday meetings said they were undecided or in favor of the $250 million project and felt satisfied with answers to their questions about air quality, jobs and traffic around the plant.

“I want to make sure it’s safe. My grandkids attend (Rothschild Elementary School) across the street (from the mill),” Andy Champine of Weston said. “I walked in neutral to get the facts.”

Barry McNulty, a spokesman for We Energies at the event, said the company was pleased with turnout and the questions posed.

“No one particular issue stood out,” he said. “Residents asked very similar questions (as at the February open house), and we tried to give them a better understanding of what we do and how we do it.”

Rob Hughes, a member of Save Our Air Resources, a citizen group that has opposed the plant, said he applauded the open house events. But he’s not satisfied with We Energies’ responses to his requests for specific information on air quality if the plant is constructed.

“They had a doctor there saying this is good, but thousands of doctors have signed on to a letter (in Massachusetts) saying these plants are bad for people’s health,” Hughes said.

Hughes was referring to the Massachusetts Medical Society, and its December decision to oppose three biomass plants, citing respiratory problems that air pollution can cause or worsen. The organization also asked state governments to discourage the construction of biomass facilities.

The Public Utilities Commission hearing/meeting on the Certificate of Need (09-1186) and Siting Permit (08-1233) for Goodhue Wind went on until 10:30 last night, and many people still had not spoken.   It starts up again at3:00 p.m., again at the Goodhue school.

For the full record, go to www.puc.state.mn.us and “Search eDockets” for 08-1233 (siting) or 09-1186 (Certificate of Need).

And here is a small part of Goodhue Wind Truth’s filings:

Direct Testimony - Richard R. James, INCE

The “How-To” Guide to Siting Wind Turbines to Prevent Health Risks from Sound

Wind Turbine Noise - What Audiologists Should Know

News coverage of yesterday’s shindig:

In the Beagle

Goodhue Wind releases detailed site plan

On MPR:

Wind turbine or the Foshay Tower: Which is taller?

At Finance & Commerce:

Goodhue Wind execs, opponents meet before administrative judge

Rochester Post-Bulletin:

Wind buffer proposals from Zumbrota, Goodhue meet resistance

And at MinnPost:

Concerns about wind farms to be aired at Goodhue hearing

Rochester Post-Bulletin:

Proponents and critics of proposed Goodhue County wind farm speak up

On KSTP - check the video!!!

Controversy brewing over wind mill farm

I’d guess there will be something in the News Record and the Beacon soon too…

In the STrib - info on capital funding for the Goodhue project and other National projects:

Deutsche Bank funding will give a push to local wind developer

National Wind will get help on 12 projects and a loan to expand.

By JENNIFER BJORHUS, Star Tribune

A Minneapolis-based wind developer is getting a lift from Deutsche Bank. The German investment bank will help finance 12 wind projects, including five slated for Minnesota, that National Wind has in various stages in the pipeline, National Wind said Thursday. The bank also gave the developer a senior secured loan for an undisclosed amount to finance an expansion to the West Coast and New England.

“We anticipate that Deutsche Bank will participate in financing those projects,” Leon Steinberg, National Wind’s chief executive, said in an interview Thursday.

The projects are still subject to underwriting, but it’s good news for the company at a time when many wind developers are struggling with tight financing.

Robert Martorano, managing director of Deutsche Bank’s asset finance and leasing group, said in a statement that Deutsche Bank is making renewable energy a priority.

National Wind, which employs about 42 people, develops relatively large wind farms with local land owners who maintain majority ownership when projects are done. It has sold three operational wind farms so far: one in Minnesota’s Cottonwood County and two in North Dakota. The 12 projects it is working on would generate 3,950 megawatts of electricity, or enough to power an estimated 1.6 million to 3.6 million homes, depending on weather and the sizes of the homes. The five slated for Minnesota would generate about 1,030 megawatts, or enough to power 412,000 to 927,000 homes.

National Wind made headlines in April with news that one of Texas oil magnate Boone Pickens’ companies is backing another National Wind project in the state, a 78-megawatt wind farm it’s developing around Goodhue, Minn., south of Red Wing. Pickens’ Mesa Power is helping finance that project and supplying about 52 1.5-megawatt GE wind turbines.

The state Public Utilities Commission has granted the Goodhue farm preliminary approval. A group called Goodhue Wind Truth has been opposing the project, which would span about 32,000 acres.