121 – 7th Place East, Suite 350, Large Hearing Room
St. Paul, MN 55101
Here we go — the PUC has announced a “planning meeting” for this e21 Initiative based on the filing of Xcel Energy last month. What filing? Well, this one:
Here’s what the PUC says they’re going to do at that meeting:
Why is the Commission going along with this to the extent that they are? Well, they do have connections, and for sure PUC Commissione Nancy Lange, who is listed as Advisory Committee on the Citizens League e21 promotional group, should NOT be participating at the Commission, in discussions or by voting (see Appendix B, p. 1, of the Citizens League Policy Framework to Optimize Efficiency of the Electrical Energy System_Phase2):
Citizen’s League’s mighty presumptuous charge from this report, to recommend e21 and draft legislation!!!
And remember, Xcel, in its letter they asked the Public Utilities Commission for a meeting:
Throughout this e21 filing they say, repeatedly, that this is a “package,” and the consensus depends on this being a “package,” which is reminiscent of the “it’s a deal, a package deal, and it’s a good deal” of the 2005 Transmission Omnibus Bill from Hell. We saw how that “good deal” worked, how it worked for the public, and who it was “a good deal” for. Disgusting…
But that big red flag is not all — they also asked that no Comment Period be scheduled:
Thus, we respectfully request that the Commission delay initiating a comment period to allow for additional collaboration prior to the start of a formal proceeding.
Really! Because clearly some stakeholders are more stakeholders than others, I filed a Petition for Intervention to get a foot in the door and notice of festivities:
So if you’re wondering what all this means, that it’s a little obfuscated between the lines, come on down to the Public Utilities Commission Planning Session. If you want to make comments either file them or bring written ones to hand out, because there’s no set time for public comments:
2:00 p.m. on Thursday February 26, 2015
Minnesota Public Utilities Commission
121 – 7th Place East, Suite 350, Large Hearing Room
Yes, I’ve filed this under “Energy” “Disaster” because it’s a train wreck of a proposal, and I cannot believe people would buy into this… or sell out into this. What, you say? e21!
In December, Xcel filed this, and I swear, this was the heading:
REQUEST FOR PLANNING MEETING AND DIALOGUEROADMAP FOR SUPPORTING THE e21 INITIATIVE
“Roadmap for SUPPORTING?” Really…
So what is it? It’s a lot of whining about how hard it is to be a utility and that things are changing. Ummmmm… yeah. As if Xcel didn’t know that?
It feels to me like it’s another whack at “restructuring,” a/k/a deregulation, and a “we’re too big to fail” argument. And as before with “restructuring,” everyone’s getting in line, jumping on the bandwagon.
Listen to this recommendation:
(J)1. Encourage the use of, and give additional weight to, settlement agreements among parties, as long as the Commission determines that the agreements are in the public interest.
Really…
And now that we’ve permitted and built all this excess transmission capacity, they’re whining about under-utilization… can you believe it? Check this recommendation:
(N) Identify and develop opportunities to reduce customer costs by improving overall grid efficiency. In Minnesota, the total electric system utilization is approximately 55 percent (average demand divided by peak demand), thus providing an opportunity to reduce system costs by better utilizing existing system assets (e.g., generation, wires, etc.).
This sounds like the best opening to get into the CapX and MVP dockets and get them revoked. Give me a break…
Why file for intervention? Well, this thing is all about stakeholders, and argues that, hey, look, all the stakeholders agree so just do it. Ummmm… right… and just who are the stakeholders? Those who have made those agreements with them in the past that got us right where we are today, DOH! What a fine mess you’ve gotten us into… let’s not do it yet again!
It’s not just Xcel, but they’re the ringleaders filing the request. So what is this and why support it? Well, first, let’s look at the basic plan — “stakeholders” and Xcel are proposing things be done differently. Why? Well, here’s an egregious example. How about circumventing all that pesky criteria that they must meet to get a Certificate of Need, and we know how hard that is to prove up need when there is none… so will someone tell me what the relationship is between “use of, and give additional weight to, settlement agreements among the parties” and criteria for a Commission on anything, be it a Certificate of Need or a Rate Case?
Can you believe that? But wait, how many Certificate of Need applications have ever been denied? Oh well, maybe it makes them work at it too hard to fabricate some need claim? And we know how rate cases have been going lately, not exactly in a way that Xcel wants!
Another points they’re looking for:
Don’t want those pesky intervenors in individual cases, after all. Multiple dockets for multiple projects, how on earth could people receive notice, participate and find representation in this scenario? And how about not doing anything until they’ve addressed the 09-845 “Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines” docket that’s been languishing for five years now?
And look who the “stakeholders” are, and clearly some are more equal than others. Look who’s involved, the same utility interests, or the toadies that have sold out to the utility interests:
AAAARGH! Anyway, back to the “stakeholders.” Utility toadies all… except I don’t know of toadying on the part of Ron Elwood, who’s often been participating on behalf of ratepayers in ratecases, and did a great report on nuclear ages ago. But the vast majority are either utility employees or have been a clear benefactor of “agreements” with utilities and are actively advocating positions beneficial to utilities, a revolving door of personnel and employers. Mikey Bull’s been on every side of this multi-party love-fest, Betsy Engelking too. Beth Soholt and Matt Schuerger, then of the Waltons and ME3, are the ones who asked 7 or 8 of us likely intervenors “what would it take for you to approve this project” just before the SW MN 345 kV transmission line 01-1958 docket was applied for, searching for a sell-out but not offering anything or disclosing what exactly they were getting:
This “Merger Stipulation” shows the beginning of not just the wind promotion but the transmission toadyism:
Who can forget the 01-1958 SW MN 345 kV 4 Certificates of Need docket, where parties, well, SOME parties, were actively encourage to “negotiate” by then ALJ and now PUC Chair Heydinger, and Crocker and Krikava were so busy winking at each other?
Throughout that proceeding, ALJ, now PUC Chair Heydinger, encouraged certain parties to negotiate, and negotiate they did and a couple of settlements occurred at that time, one was the Community Wind agreement incorporated into that docket, and the other the TRANSLink agreement:
Well, apparently not everything they wanted, because now they want more. We saw how promotion of transmission worked on this ITC Midwest MN/IA 345 kV case. And don’t forget, the Walton’s Bill Grant is now Deputy Commissioner of Commerce in charge of Energy permitting and “environmental review,” and the Walton’s Nancy Lange is now on the Public Utilities Commission.
Wonder what kind of review their “e21 Initiative” will get!
Tomorrow the Wilmarth/North Mankato to North Rochester to Mississippi/Tremval WI transmission line is before the Commission to address completeness of the application, and a lot more:
This is the project that, as an alternate route, proposes to go over the HUGE 13.25 (at least) underground natural gas storage dome. And the Prehn Family live right on top of that dome!
Nowhere in the application did Xcel mention the dome, and in response to comments, said they’re used to dealing with pipelines, interactions are comment. But Xcel, this ain’t no pipeline. They did finally admit that, and got some info from CenterPoint, including that their proposed route did go over 4 of their gas wells.
Xcel Supplemental Comments, p. 3-4 (won’t upload here at the park, hmmmm…).
Here’s a bizarre statement to justify that Colorado-New Mexico corridor — claim of a1,200% increase? Have they forgotten those 11,000MW of mothballed natural gas generation and the transmission that serves it?
Under scenarios withmoderate load growth and high clean energy growth future scenarios, ERCOT will need an anticipated median increase of 9.8 GW of additional transfer capacity with the Plains region by 2035, a 1,200% increase relative to the 2020 system (p. 35).
And paired with this, pages later, 31 pages later (p. 66), a scenic tour down Hwy 54?
And does this look familiar — have a Grain Belt anyone?
Yes, looks too much like the ol’ Grain Belt Transmission Line:
And this one looks too familiar too, shades of Plains & Eastern:
As if all these transmission projects in Minnesota weren’t enough… weren’t too much already?!??!
Hot off the press — Notice of a Commission Planning Meeting:
Why is the Commission going along with this to the extent that they are? Well, they do have connections, and for sure PUC Commissione Nancy Lange, who is listed as Advisory Committee on the Citizens League e21 promotional group, should NOT be participating at the Commission, in discussions or by voting (see Appendix B, p. 1, of the Citizens League Policy Framework to Optimize Efficiency of the Electrical Energy System_Phase2):
Citizen’s League’s mighty presumptuous charge from this report, to recommend e21 and draft legislation!!!
Throughout this e21 filing they say, repeatedly, that this is a “package,” and the consensus depends on this being a “package,” which is reminiscent of the “it’s a deal, a package deal, and it’s a good deal” of the 2005 Transmission Omnibus Bill from Hell. We saw how that “good deal” worked, how it worked for the public, and who it was “a good deal” for. Disgusting…
Who can forget the 01-1958 SW MN 345 kV 4 Certificates of Need docket, where parties, well, SOME parties, were actively encourage to “negotiate” by then ALJ and now PUC Chair Heydinger, and Crocker and Krikava were so busy winking at each other?
