Legalectric

There’s the Forbes article about American Wind Energy Ass (AWEA) advocating for this massive mess of new 765 kV lines.

Experts: Reducing Carbon Emissions and Increasing Grid Reliability are Doable

Experts?  Ummmm, AWEA?  No, they are NOT transmission experts, they are only expert in doing what their masters pay them to do.  Here’s their “vision” from a couple of years ago:

Green Power Superhighways

Report – Update to the Superhighways report that AWEA’s Michael Goggin wrote in fall 2013.

In Minnesota, there’s one paralleling the CapX 2020 line, then another cutting the state in two from Big Stone to the Metro, and another from Split Rock to Adams along I-90.  Who the hell do they think they are to advocate for this overkill of transmission?  And note that in the Dakotas, as always, they start at the big coal plants.  Infrastructure like this is the best way to assure coal never shuts down, adding capacity instead of shutting coal down and using that capacity.  And if they do it this way, then they can run our coal plants forever.  Oh, right… this is the plan AEP supports.

First and foremost, remember that this is about economics — money and profit from building transmission and providing transmission service — the grid IS electrically reliable, so says NERC in its latest State of Reliability 2013 Report:

And here’s the NERC Report (one should be due out soon, used to be October, but they’ve pushed it back):

2013 NERC Reliability Assessment

What strikes me is that so many are willing to believe that the electric grid is not “reliable” and are willing to attribute economic issues like “congestion” to claims that the system is not reliable.  And then there’s their successful effort to shift cost allocation so that the generators no longer pay for transmission necessary to access and safely operate the grid.  In the past, generators paid, but then in the gas plant surge over a decade ago, so many were built without transmission upgrades that we were in transmission deficit, evidenced in the 2001-2004 SW MN 345 kV Four Certificates of Need (MN PUC Docket 01-1958).  Check this TLTG Table, click for a larger version:

For their 1-H option, the one that the enviros agreed to in this project, acquiesced to (remember, this was the project where they got a group together and asked “What would it take to support this project?”), the system starts out with a 1475 MW deficit.  It’s not until they’ve fixed some long standing problems, such as the sagging Wilmarth line, and the FT. CALHOUN INTERFACE which is in the base case (!!!!), and after spending over $138 million including their wide ranging “base case” of necessary fixes, that they start actually adding some system capacity.  DOH!  Give me a break…

The real problem is failure to make those added generators pay for fixing the system impacts, and then the desire to add wind projects without making them pay for system impacts, and more importantly, of wanting to add wind on top of the existing coal generation, without removing the coal which would make plenty of room for wind.  The price of their wanting to “find a way forward for coal.”

American Wind Energy Ass, how dare you.  This one’s for you:

From AWEA’s 2012 IRS 990 (the most recent one on Guidestar), p. 25 and 29:

AWEA_2012_IRS990

That’s tonight!  West is almost done.  The final layer of asphalt is now down, and they’ve dumped black dirt behind the wall and sprayed the boulevards and dirt bordering the sidewalks with that green stuff.

Here’s the new yard, with two new trees (with aftermarket bird nest), and the wired-for-light post for the Little Free Library next to the Neighbors Against the Burner sign:

Not today’s photo, this one from September 11, 2014.

Today at the PUC, the Black Oak and Getty Wind Project was on the agenda. For the full docket, go to PUC SEARCH DOCKETS, and search for 10-1240 (Black Oak) or 11-831 (Getty), and for the Certificate of Need, 11-471.

I’d been retained late last week by project neighbors to address the Commission on their behalf.  They’d been participating throughout, and are frustrated that they’re not being heard, that issues that had been raised by their group, their neighbors, and the DNR were not being heard.  Well, so much for that… Chair Heydinger said that they, the Commission, were not there to discuss layout of the turbines, that it’s only about size, that the notice was about size.  Well, we did get that statement on the record, and I asked again, to be clear on the record, and she repeated that the layout was not at issue, that it’s all in the footprint.  There’s no where to go at the Commission with that kind of statement from the Chair!

Here’s the notice for that agenda item, the issues for Commission decision.

And more importantly, the Applicant filed a Petition For Extension of Certificate of Need on Tuesday, two days before this meeting!  The Commission is making decisions on this siting permit when the Certificate of Need is in limbo?  When the Applicant by their own admission is not going to meet its in-service deadline?

Anyway, layout not at issue today?  Here are the decision items presented to the Commission:

From the Briefing Papers, here is the DNR take on the layout, and note the reference to “previous layouts” because there have been several, and it’s very confusing

Here are DNR comments over the years — the September and October, 2014, comments are regarding this new layout — can you tell if the Commission, Commerce, or anyone paid any attention to the DNR Comments?

DNR_Oct92014_201410-103718-03

DNR_Oct92014_201410-103718-01

DNR_Sept292014_20149-103427-01

DNR_Sept292014_20149-103427-02

DNR_Sept292014_20149-103427-03

DNR_Nov22012_201211-80359-01

DNR_Aug 24 2012_20128-78117-01

DNR_Bat_Feb 22 2013_20132-83757-01

DNR_Feb112012_20112-59451-01

Did the Commission make any attempt to determine whether the DNR concerns were addressed?  Nope.  They just voted.

But this “wasn’t about layout,” so what does it matter…

And worse, knowing of the just filed Petition For Extension of Certificate of Need and that the project would admittedly not be built by the claimed in-service date, they rammed through approval of this new siting arrangement.

There was a notice on the MPCA Silica Sand page that the 10/29 deadline for Comments on their latest “rule concept” release, but couldn’t find a notice.  So I got ahold of Nathan Cooley who said he’d get on it, and lo and behold, a formal “Notice” is released and lands in the inbox!  YES!  Thank you!

Here it is, it’s official, straight from the State Register, p. 586:

So what to comment on?  This, from the MPCA site:

Second request for comments (September 2014); deadline for comments extended to Nov. 21, 2014.

• Deadline extended to November 21
• Second request for comments (aq-rule4-07g)
• Preliminary draft narrative of silica sand rule concepts (aq-rule4-07h)

The DNR also has rulemaking going on about trout stream setbacks and reclamation of abandoned mines.  MORE INFO HERE!

For an update on Testimony filings last week, hop over to “Not-so-Great Northern Transmission” and check it out:

Rebuttal Testimony filed in GNTL Certificate of Need docket