Uploads of interesting Mesaba Discovery
July 30th, 2006
Testing… one… two…
This upload is too much for me, but it looks like it might be working.
Anyway, finally, here’re the Discovery responses about the Mesaba G519 study that says they have to cut 675MW of wind in SW MN, that the Big Stone II generation must be “kept in North Dakota” and more, but MP’s response isn’t in yet. Here’s the G519 study link. I’d asked each affected party, Big Stone II partners, Xcel, Minnesota Power and Excelsior about cost impacts of the generation cuts and limitations that the Stability Study calls for.
Here’s the Big Stone II partners responses to my questions about cost impact of “keeping generation in ND” which of course they knew nothing about until now:
Here’s Excelsior’s responses to my questions about redirecting BSII generation:
And here’s Xcel’s response about cost of cutting 675MW, i.e., curtailment payments, if Mesaba is connected and 675MW of wind from SW MN is cut:
Minnesota Power’s responses are on the way someday soon, they asked for an extension.
Now, if I can just figure out how to upload pictures, I can post some of last Tuesday’s CAMP meeting, which was a great success. Standing room only on a hot and muggy night in Grand Rapids — people want to hear about the Mesaba project and ask questions!
If you have questions about Excelsior’s Mesaba project, you can try their site, Excelsior Energy, and for even more, see www.mncoalgasplant.com.  Citizens Against the Mesaba Project (CAMP) is under construction but open for business at www.camp-site.info.
Great Excelsior/Mesaba editorial in GRHR today!
July 13th, 2006
.
What would the late “Jack Pine
Grand Rapids Herald-Review
Editor:
The late â??Jack Pine Bobâ? Cary once remarked that instead of spending millions of dollars on poorly planned economic development the government would be better off giving 100 people 1 million dollars. These people would quit their jobs creating 100 job openings and would spend like crazy, boosting the local economy and creating more jobs.
However, I donâ??t think Bob would approve of spending almost 2 billion dollars to build a power plant near Taconite at the price of about $20 million per job. Heâ??d likely point out that we have no need for more power in this area. Why would we want to take away our neighborsâ?? land to build transmission and pipelines for the benefit of a private corporation and then send the power to distant cities or states? Why would we want more train traffic and coal dust in downtown Grand Rapids? Why should we give our hard-earned tax dollars to an unproven company, and why would we risk those tax dollars on unproven technology?
Bob might ask why we should trust Excelsior Energy when they have never produced a single kw of power? Why should we trust CEO/lobbyist Tom Micheletti when his main strength appears to be making deals at all levels of government? Why would we trust his wife and co-CEO Julie Jorgensen when she was previously a top executive with NRG (a company that filed a $9.2 billion bankruptcy shortly after her departure)? The â??expertiseâ? of Excelsior seems to be greasing political wheels and schmoozing. Nothing in this companyâ??s background indicates they are capable of success.
Before Itasca County Commissioners get too excited about distributing and bonding millions of dollars for this project, Bob might caution them to consider what happened with Technimar, Tirecycle, and the chopsticks factory in Hibbing.
In contrast, the MSI steel project seems worth supporting as the principal players are experienced and know how to produce a product for which there is a market. They will purchase power from MP & L, not Excelsior! MSI does not need Excelsior, but Excelsior needs a mandated Power Purchase Agreement for the electricity they hope to produce. They are hoping the Minnesota PUC will force another utility to buy their power. Right now this is an ongoing legal battle that they very well may lose. Excelsior has said that without a PPA, â??not a shovelful of dirt will be turned.â?
Bob would look at the overall downside to this project and wonder at the audacity of our local and state officials supporting $15-20 million dollars of our tax money per job (very few of which any local resident is qualified for), construction jobs too specialized for local workers, up to 540 pounds of mercury emitted per decade leading to fewer fish safely eaten, several thousand annual tons of pollutants up the stack, dusty train traffic, and loss of our personal property to eminent domain.
Heâ??d probably give a wry smile and ask, â??Are we stuck on stupid?â?
â??White Pineâ?
Jim Anderson
Pengilly
Incremental wins at the PUC on Mesaba
July 9th, 2006
Now we’re going to see how uploading works on this puppy!
Why are these guys smiling? I’m not == uploading doesn’t work!
This was an utterly insane week, with Mesaba Discovery and Discovery issues flying and the Mesaba siting permit on the agenda of the PUC.
1) Order for Citizens Advisory Task Force
Thursday was the PUC meeting to accept the Mesaba siting application (siting of plant, transmission and natural gas) and decide whether they want to appoint a Citizens Advisory Task Force. Commerce staff had their opinion, found in Staff Briefing Papers — that there should NOT be a Citizens Advisory Task Force, and instead only be a “work group” of local government officials. SAY WHAT??? Read those Briefing Papers, it’s enough to make you puke… but remember, Commerce does not have the same charge as EQB, and the EQB was the one that utilized the statutorily authorized Citizens Advisory Task Force (CATF). As “Commerce” said, “we’re not bound by history.” As one representing the folks on the ground in these projects over the last decade, decade plus, color me outraged. OK, fine, that’s how you want to play it, I’m ready. Here’s my response to that attitude, a request for a CATF, because the statute says that when they get a request, they have to address it at the next meeting. Obviously, with their attitude, Commerce will just ignore that, so before they had time to talk their way around my request, they were flooded with 23 more!
Let’s see… we had mine to start, and I’ve been involved with three projects with four CATF’s; others from projects with CATFs who wrote were Shellene Johnson, former President of CRVC (Chisago Project), John Nauerth III who was on two CATFs in association with the SW MN 345kV line, Linda Hanson/WOLF, Intervenor in Arrowhead MN and WI; Julie Risser, candidate for SD 41 in Edina; Clean Water Action Alliance by Erin Jordahl-Redlin on behalf of its 60,000 members, Sierra Club Northstar Chapter by Christoopher Childs; Ross Hammond, P.E., formerly of Xcel (ran the Riverside coal plant!) and NRG and who is now an ME3 Board Member; Harold Dziuk, DVM, Ph.D., who was a member of the PUC’s Science Advisors regarding ground currents; and locals on the ground including Earl Orf, Ron Gustafson, Charlotte Neigh, Esq., Jane Latimer, Andrew David, Linda Castagneri, Kurt Christopherson, Brad Jones, Darrell and Dee White, David and Carmen Griggs, Doug and Barbara Veit, Thomas Nelson and Sanna Pederson, and last but certainly not least, Bob and Leeann Norgord.
Yes, the PUC got the message allright, and Ordered a Citizens Advisory Task Force. But what was very disturbing was the Commerce attitude that there were plenty of opportunities to participate, there were all these public meetings and there would be even more. What a load of crap (which barely begins to express my disgust)! There has been exactly one public meeting in the past year since the West Site was revealed as Excelsior’s preferred site. That was the DOE meeting for the DOE’s EIS. Check out the transcript for a sense of the public outrage about this “West Site.” Nothing from the state, no public meeting at all yet, and 8/22 is the Siting informational meeting. In the PPA docket, they hadn’t anticipated doing meetings up north (EH?) and the latest is the ALJ thinks that the public should not be able to cross-examine witnesses up there. EH???? So anyway, we got an Order for a Citizens Advisory Task Force.
2) Order for access to Trade Secret Information
And now back to the Mesaba PPA docket, where we’ve been having a pissing contest over access to cost information in a PPA docket — a Power Purchase Agreement is about nothing but cost — but the ALJ said pre-emptively and prematurely and without specific determinations, that mncoalgasplant.com was not entitled to cost information. Really! Here’s from the memorandum:
Parties that are not a utility or a power producer will usually not need access to the detailed cost and technical data. Sometimes they are not in a position to make helpful comment about it. But they may be. So separate treatment is reasonable…
And the separate treatment we got was a paragraph that was NOT in the Protective Order drafts we discussed at the PUC Hearing, those were just fine, this is patently offensive:
(F) Non-utility or non-power producer Parties shall not have access to Trade Secret Information absent a showing that the interest they seek to protect reasonably requires it.
So, what, we guess what might be there and try to prove we need something when we don’t know what it is? Right…
We got support from the Xcel Industrial Intervenors (Geraud Ameristeel and Marathon Oil) in their brief. …sigh… how to upload a pdf? grrrrrrrrrrrr
And the PUC site is screwed up and the OAH site doesn’t list anything, WTF? So I guess that won’t get posted…
Anyway, we got the Order in the afternoon, after the PUC hearing on the siting side of the project, and it said:
(3) However, pursuant to subparagraph 1(c)(ii)(F) of the Protective Order, MCGP has shown that the interest MCGP seeks to protect in thos proceeding reasonably requires access to Trade Secret Information, as defined in the Protective Order; and (4) MCGP is therefore GRANTED access to Trade Secret Information, as defined in the Protective Order.
3) PUC issues notice of Comment Period — Just a day after the meeting, an email goes out to the service list on the PPA docket that they’re taking Comments on Cost issues. GOOD!
NOTICE OF COMMENT PERIOD ON WHETHER THE COMMISSION SHOULD SPECIFY ADDITIONAL ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED At its July 6, 2006 agenda meeting, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (Commission) considered the acceptance of Excelsior Energy Inc.â??s (Excelsior) Combined Application for a Site Permit, Transmission Line Route Permit, and Natural Gas Pipeline Permit for its Mesaba Energy Project in Docket No. E-6472/GS-06-668. In the course of discussions on the 06-668 docket, issues were raised that may be more directly addressed in Docket No. E-6472/M-05-1993 (05-1993 Docket) which the Commission has already referred for contested case hearing. The Commission directed its staff to bring these issues back before the Commission at a future agenda meeting in the 05-1993 Docket. Written comments will be accepted on whether the Commission should supplement its April 26, 2006 Notice and Order for Hearing and Order Granting Intervention Petition in the 05-1993 Docket to request that parties specifically address:-the costs of transmission upgrades and related facilities beyond the substation associated with the Mesaba Energy Project; and-the costs of other infrastructure investments associated with the Mesaba Energy Project.Parties wishing to comment shall do so by 4:30 p.m. on July 18, 2006 This matter is tentatively scheduled to be heard at the Commissionâ??s July 27, 2006 agenda meeting.Questions regarding this matter may be directed to Janet Gonzalez at 651-201-2231.
Dr. Ed Anderson and Leeann Norgord on Mesaba
July 2nd, 2006
In this weekend’s Grand Rapids Herald Review:
Public health at risk with Mesaba Energy ProjectEditor:
The proposed power plant on the Scenic Highway has generated much recent discussion, but what you may not have heard about yet are the many â??health benefitsâ? that Excelsior Energy states this project will bring to our region.
Excelsior Energy submitted a report to the MPUC in December 2005 detailing the â??health benefitsâ? of this project. This report compares the Mesaba Project to a hypothetical larger pulverized coal plant near the Twin Cities, allowing them to compare their negative environmental and health impacts in a positive light.One â??benefitâ? is that particulate emissions from phase one will result in 1.5 fewer deaths per year in Minnesota and 6.4 fewer people will die per year nationally. There will be a peak air quality effect near the plant, and areas with a higher population of older residents will be at greater risk. The mortality risks associated with this plant are only â??somewhat lowerâ? overall, and are â??more concentrated around the facilityâ? as compared to the hypothetical coal plant.
Using this same line of illogical reasoning, the study concludes that fewer people will get sick from bronchitis, asthma, and emphysema/COPD. Fewer children will develop asthma. Fewer people will have heart attacks. Fewer people will have work-loss days. Fewer healthy people will feel sick less often. This is only true if compared to a theoretical pulverized coal plant near the metro region which no one plans to build. Does any of this sound like a benefit?
The truth is that there are no health benefits. The reality is that all of the effects are additive. If this plant is built more people will get sick, and more people will die. The negative public health impacts extend well beyond the effects of particulate matter, and there are substantial dollar costs associated with the resulting mortality and morbidity (illness). This all adds up to a significant negative public health impact for Itasca County and beyond. The project may provide a â??benefitâ? to someone you know and love. Can you accept this? Should we accept this?
This project carries huge public financial risk, will be a major negative environmental impact, and has public health concerns too numerous to fully discuss in this venue. The few lobbyists that make up Excelsior Energy are very good at putting positive spin on the many negative aspects of this project. They have done an amazing job of getting legislation passed for their own personal benefit, have secured millions of public dollars for a venture too risky for private investment, and have little or no personal equity at stake. This project is far from a done deal. Think of what you might consider appropriate benefits for a project with a downside of this magnitude. Who really benefits? What are the actual costs? These are all things that we need to fully consider when deciding if an economic development project is the right fit for our region.
Ed Anderson, M.D.
Bovey
==================================================
Concerns, questions surround Mesaba Energy project
Editor:
I have some concerns and questions regarding the proposed Excelsior Coal Gasification Plant.
I’ve been reading the facts as to the pollutants the Mesaba Energy Project would be emitting into the air/water, specifically mercury.
The Grand Rapids Herald-Review corrected their statement (in June 19 paper) they made in the June 14 article titled, “Excelsior award from DOE celebrated” of “0” emissions of mercury to “lower mercury emissions than regular coal fired generating plant”. Also the article stated they were planning to build 3 coal gasification plants on the Iron Range, but in Excelsior’s paperwork, they propose to build 6 gasification plants in northern Minnesota.
The plans for the gasification plant also intend to shorten the stacks to 150 ft. vs. 700 ft. in the regular coal fired plants. With the 700 ft. stacks, some particulates are able to drop back into the stack with a smaller percent going into the atmosphere approximately 200 or more miles, but with the 150 ft. stacks, this would not be the case. The particulates would be more concentrated and would fall within a 5 mile radius. So the communities close to this plant (Taconite, Marble, Coleraine, Bovey, Calumet) will have concentrated mercury and other pollutants falling into their back yards.
Now, even with the EPA’s standards of allowable mercury into the atmosphere/lakes, there are current reports stating pregnant women and children should not be eating fish more than one time per week in some lakes, and not more than one time per month in others due to the mercury content. What is going to happen to northern Minnesota lakes, rivers and tributaries if Excelsior is allowed to build not only one plant, but six plants emitting these pollutants? Will we be prevented from safely eating not only the fish, but the wildlife (deer, moose, bear) who eat the grasses, berries, etc. and drink the water, that these pollutants fall upon? I urge all the local people to investigate what is being told to the public vs. what is on the Web site mncoalgasificationplant.com which is Excelsior’s own paperwork and statistics.
I would hate to see our beautiful Northland become an industrial waste site, especially since the electricity will not be used here and the majority of jobs are only for those who are specially trained and experienced in these types of plants (construction included).
Lee Ann Norgord
Bovey
Tell PUC we need a Citizen’s Advisory Task Force for Mesaba
June 26th, 2006
Excelsior’s Mesaba power plant siting, transmission and pipeline application is in, and word is that Commerce Staff is recommending that rather than the Citizens Advisory Task Force, the PUC should appoint a “working group with local units of government.” The public is shut out once again. This is getting really old…
The “working group” and Task Force will be addressed by the PUC at their meeting on July 6, at 9:00 a.m.
TELL THE PUC WE NEED A CITIZENS ADVISORY TASK FORCE!!! Here’s the rule that provides for the Task Force. We need to have the public involved, looking into the nooks and crannies of this application, applying the critical eye that only locals have. This project needs some serious scrutiny.
Click here and email Burl Haar, Executive Sec. of PUC, and tell him that for the Excelsior/Mesaba siting docket 05-94-PPS you’re requesting that the PUC appoint a Citizens Advisory Task Force, because the public should be involved in this first of a kind decision, that regular people invested in the community, people who have to live with the result, must be able to take part.
The entire application is now on the … PUC siting… Commerce… the agency formerly known as “EQB”… site.
