December 12th, 2014
EEEEEEEEEE-HA! The NERC Report is out:
I love the NERC Report — the annual Long Term Reliability Assessment from the North American Electric Reliability Corporation. Why? Well, it’s a nice offset to the gloom and doom of the MTEP promotional pieces because NERC features tables like this:
What’s not to like about “NERC_Wide Demand: 10-Year Growth Rates (Summer and Winter) at Lowest Levels on Record” as a leading table?
Better yet, they go area by area, and show, even using utility provided data, that it’s not nearly as bad as the utilities claim in their hystrionic applications and testimony. Let’s look at the bottom line in the section about MISO (click on table for larger view):
NERC Reliability Assessment, p. 38 (or p. 46 of 115 pdf). Note how this is NOT scary histrionic data here?!?! Also note, they use coincident peak for forecasting, as they should. If I hear one more “non-coincident peak” being used, I shall scream!
Again, it’s the 2014 NERC Reliability Assessment. Check this out for a more rational view.
December 12th, 2014
It’s that time of year… the time that we get to tell the Public Utilities Commission what does and does not work about the Power Plant Siting Act. We’ve been doing it for years, 15 or so years, and have spent over a year now in a rulemaking on the PUC’s rules, Ch. 7849 (Certificate of Need) and Ch. 7850 (Power Plant & Transmission Siting) where some of these long complained of problems will be address (with any luck). And now, again, it’s time to reinforce those comments with another round of comments:
After the hearing, now officiated by an Administrative Law Judge (new as of a few years ago), a report is issued to the PUC and then ??? It used to go to the legislature, and it used to go to the EQB… guess I have to find out what happens now.
December 19, 2014 beginning at 9:30 a.m.
Public Utilities Commission
3rd Floor Large Hearing Room
121 – 7th Place East
St. Paul, MN 55101
Each of you who have experience siting and routing of large electric energy facilities — this is the time to weigh in. Remember that this is NOT project specific, it’s not about where a project goes of whether it does, but it’s about how the process works or doesn’t, so for example, it’s the time to let them know that notice isn’t being provided, or that witnesses should be sworn on oath so that testimony will be given more weight, etc. You can do it in person, and you can do it by filing comments.
Here is the Power Plant Siting Act, which governs the siting and routing of large energy facilities:
Here are some prior dockets (to access the entire docket, individual comments, etc., go to the PUC’s “SEARCH” site and plug in the docket numbers :
2006 Report to PUC – Docket 06-1733
2007 Report to PUC – Docket 07-1579
2008 Report to PUC - Docket 08-1426
2009 Report to PUC – Docket 09-1351
2010 Report to PUC – Docket 10-222
2011 Report to PUC – Docket 11-324
2013 Report – Docket 13-9650143-96999-01
November 18th, 2014
The Orders are out! On October 30, 2014, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission ordered that the permit for the Black Oak (10-1240) and Getty (11-831) wind projects be amended. This is the one where they were “NOT” talking about “layout.” Or so the Chair most emphatically said (despite the meeting notice, staff briefing papers, and their order options saying layout was at issue).
The written order came out today — note that the term “layout” is used 27 times in the Order… and then there’s the attached permit for a total of 41 times… oh, and the part about ownership:
And on that note, here are Comments filed yesterday in the Certificate of Need docket:
November 4th, 2014
Released yesterday by National Institute for Science, Law, and Public Policy (NISLAPP) (never heard of it before, need to do some checking):
Why is this a question? We know it’s a problem. But this report focuses on things like “Smart Meters” and doesn’t dig into the the even worse toadying for coal gasification and other harebrained promotional schemes of these orgs.
Here in Minnesota, the money goes to Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, Fresh Energy f/k/a ME3, Izaak Walton League and its former program now independent 501(c)(3) Wind on the Wires (conveniently separate since just after election, when Bill Grant was appointed Deputy Commissioner of Commerce in charge of all things energy)(oh, and Nancy Lange appointed to Public Utilities Commission). And then there’s RE-AMP. There’s so much money flying around for promotion of transmission and coal gasification.
AAAAAAAAAAAAARGH… back to work…
November 3rd, 2014
Yes, MISO is at it again, no, not the good MISO as above, but the other MISO, the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. Once again, they’re asking FERC for termination of a Generation Interconnection Agreement (GIA) for the failed and revoked Goodhue Wind Project, the part with MISO queue number H062 (it’s been assigned Docket No. ER15-254-000).
This is the docket that never ends, but keeps inching toward the cliff. For all intents and purposes it’s over, but here’s another housekeeping detail. It’s permits are revoked, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission has closed the docket… but wait… didn’t they already do this in August?
Mastic’s H061 & H062 Interconnection Agmts TERMINATEDAugust 18th, 2014
Here’s the FERC Order in docket ER14-1684-000, about H062 from then:
I’ve asked the MISO attorney for clarification. Will report back on any response.
Has Peter Mastic cleared out his office?