Legalectric

Catching up after a day off, and I saw and heard that he said this, and yet again, I’m shocked at this mindset (and here I’d figured nothing could surprise me). This is what he said, publicly, recorded for posterity:

One of the Presidents of a big country stood up and said, “Well, sir, if we don’t pay and we’re attacked by Russia, would you protect us?” I said, “you didn’t pay, you’re delinquent…” He said “Yes, let’s say that happened.” “No, I would not protect you, in fact, I WOULD ENCOURAGE THEM TO DO WHATEVER THE HELL THEY WANT! You gotta pay…

Trump’s NATO comments draw scorn, White House calls them ‘unhinged’

What did he say? Listen for yourself:

Trump: One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, Well, sir, if we don't pay and were attacked by Russia, will you protect us? I said.. No I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. pic.twitter.com/2RPVDFZIXy

— Acyn (@Acyn) February 10, 2024

And Xcel Energy drops yet another application, this one to add more nuclear waste dry casks at Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant. It was all I could do to download, and I have no idea what they’re wanting. The file names are a bit odd, and I’ll need to go over them and make sure it’s all there… in my spare time…

OK, here goes:

Here’s yesterday’s D.C. Court of Appeals affirming that Trump does not have immunity. Very detailed, solid, decision, a delight!

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Here we go again!!! It’s Xcel Energy’s Integrated Resource Plan — like the previous one that “gave” us the MN Energy CONnection! Integrated Resource Plan … it’s complicated. It’s a LOT. But it is very important to wade through all of this because this is Xcel Energy’s wishful thinking, which is often divorced from reality.

To access the filings, go to the PUC’s eDockets link HERE, and click “Go to eDockets” again, and land here:

For “Docket Number” select “24” (the year”) and plug in “67” under “Number” and click the search button.

Yes, it’s a LOT. But I guarantee there is something in all that which will pique your interest!

Of interest to Red Wing folks, and City of Red Wing and Prairie Island Indian Community specifically, Goodhue County too, is this, Chapter 4, p. 10 of 24:

My major concern is the sudden uptick, or upSHOOT, in its peak demand projections. We know how off they were, and to go from 0.2 to -0.2% annually to this 1.8% to 2%? Nope, ain’t happening. their overall energy projections could increase, as they say, due to EV and other factors, but EV is typically off peak, and with all the “efficiency” and “demand response” (in “quotes” because it isn’t nearly enough, isn’t nearly what’s possible and practical), there’s just no way. And don’t forget the absurd 2.49% of CapX 2020 when they wanted to justify spending billions on transmission to facilitate bulk power transfer. Equally unforgettable was Commerce-DER’s Steve Rakow’s absurd attempt to prove that the decrease in demand we were seeing was, as Xcel Energy said, just a blip — and we knew, and now have proof, that he and Xcel Energy were so off base, intentionally it would seem, there’s no other explanation. From nocapx2020.info:

Xcel Energy is claiming the “Sherco gen-tie” project is “needed,” but their link is off — they say “We filed the Certificate of Need in March 2023. You can review it here.” but nooooo… good luck with that:

Perhaps that’s because their REVISED CoN application was filed in May? Site hasn’t been updated? But that’s so unlike Xcel, they’re usually really on top of things. They’ll fix that soon.

Anyway, we know the MN Energy CONnection is WANTED, DESIRED, but not “needed.” It’s all about keeping its “valuable transmission interconnection rights.” Minnesota and Xcel energy policy is NOT “need.”

This new filing is about their “need” looking out to 2040! To do this, let’s start with a close look at their peak demand over the last 20+ years that I’ve been tracking it through their SEC filings:

Now, what about this new Integrated Resource Plan? It’s not on Xcel Energy’s website, so here it is:

That’s just the “narrative,” 202 pages, and the appendices, they go on and on and on…

Oh yeah, it’s a lot to wade through (I’ll need a new printer drum to deal with this.) What I recommend is to start with the “narrative” at the top there, and “term search” for what you’re interested in. For me, it’s always about “need.” There’s lots to dig into:

Energy demand? HA! I think they plot these graphs on a bar napkin! see IRP Chapter 1, p. 7 of 15:

And when it comes to peak demand, what a load, IRP Chapter 3, page 2 of 29:

And from the IRP, previous page, Chapter 3, 3 of 29:

SNORT OUT LOAD!! How absurd!

Once more with feeling — Xcel’s demand has been flat, highest peak ever was 2006, and it’s not gone that high since:

Yes, 2022 is the latest report, but we’ll have another any day now when they have their annual report with 2023 SEC 10-K. They say 9,309 in 2024 — and in 2023? Still looking for it.

Let’s take some time and find out what it is they want now!

The IRP is on the Commission’s agenda THIS THURSDAY, February 8th.

Here are staff briefing papers — the issues are listed above, and here are staff comments:

FYI – hot off the press is Commerce-DER request for modeling info. GOOD! Maybe they’re paying attention to that absurd 1.8% increase in peak demand!

Thursday’s meeting doesn’t seem a big deal for the Commission, but it might be worth listening in, click on “Webcast” — it’s first on the agenda — Commissioners may have some interesting comments:

Agenda MTG
Large Hearing Room, 121 7th Place E, Suite 350, St. Paul, MN 55101
Thu, Feb 8, 10am
Meeting Details
Agenda
Live Webcast
Viewing Instructions
* items above will be linked when available

Over the last two weeks, we’ve had a bit of a road show for Xcel Energy‘s MN Energy CON(nection). We went from “Kilowatt Community Center” (really) in Granite Falls, to Marshall, and Olivia (Max’s Grill and Sheep Shed with the best ever salmon salad with feta dressing) and Redwood Falls the first week, and then Litchfield to Monticello and ending in Kimball, MN the following week.

The turnout was intense — and so many who commented were there because of CapX 2020, either on their land or in their community, and they were disgusted and angry. Rightly so! I encouraged them to weigh in, in writing, before the comment period is up on February 21 @ 4:30 p.m.

I’m hoping that folks will send in comments IN TECHNICOLOR about what needs to be in the Environmental Impact Statement — their knowledge of the local environmental issues such as DNR protected areas, field lines and road right-of-way, and their homes and barns and outbuildings. There’s also the magnetic fields modeled to be so much higher than upper bounds set by World Health Organization (though it seems stuck in 2018!) and NIEHS’s EMF Rapid Report (1999) , and there’s also the federal Environmental “Protection” Agency. True there’s no causation proven yet, but there IS association, which is how epidemiology works… not that the Public Utilities Commission or the Minnesota Appellate Court care (“Because we find merit in the commission’s conclusion that, given the lack of “resources at hand and the current state of scientific knowledge,” neither the present record nor any record that could feasibly be developed at this time would justify shutting down the line, we affirm.“).

What’s wrong with this chart? It’s based on 1,100 and 660 MVA. The application states:

Knowing 3,000 amps is more than a tad over 660-1,100 MVA, I asked about that to get it on the record. The first meeting, nada… I wanted to clarify if the twisted pairs in each circuit were also bundled, and couldn’t get that info. The following day, Jason Standing, their engineer on the job, had the answer, and yes, the twisted pairs are also bundled and it’s double-circuited. Sooooo, that’s a lot of power, well, a lot of capacity. So on to 3,000 amps — what’s the MVA associated with this conductor configuration at 3,000 amps? Tried a couple times over a couple days, and couldn’t get at it, and I requested that they, likely Jason, take the time to figure it out. And YES, the next day, he had the number. The twisted pair, bundled, and then double circuited, is…

3,584 MVA Rating

MVA is essentially MW, so think about that when they also say in the application that the line “will enable 4,000 MW of capacity.” Oh really? Now, convert that Table 6.1.12-2 in either row to the 3,584 MVA of 3,000 amps. Jason says, rightly, that it won’t always be running at that level, that it will go up and down, and they’ve no clue of an “average” or how often it’ll bump up that high, or … but let’s be clear, the capacity is there.

As always, their depiction of the magnetic fields multiplied to a max of 3,584 will be a lot higher. Even double of 1,200 and 2,200 MVA is a lot more. And what’s in that table is bad enough. At the edge of the right-of-way, 75 feet from center, at just 1,100 (less than 1/3 of capacity it’s 45 mG! That’s over TEN (10) times the recommendation of World Health Organization.

That said, let’s take a look at need. The purpose of the project is clearly stated on page 1 of the REVISED Certificate of Need (CoN) application:

And on page 3 of the CoN application:

How valuable? I’ve not found a clear answer, but I’m looking!!