Legalectric

Today we got the Draft Master Exhibit List for the Excelsior Mesaba Coal Gasification Project’s Power Purchase Agreement at the PUC. The items are frustrating to look at because you can’t get a sense what many of them are, I mean, what does “Excelsior Response to Xcel IR 4” mean, after all????

Here’s the Exhibit List (I haven’t checked yet to see if our MCGP exhibit links still work):

draft-master-exhibit-list.doc

See anything we’re missing?

Oh, and this came in today from Excelsior, their answer to the simple “Yes or No” question:

Does the estimated cost of the PPA include any costs for equipment necessary to capture and sequestrate CO2? Does it include any footprint costs to modify the plant components or plant, to accomodate any CO2 capture and sequestration? The response requires a “yes” or “no.” If your answer is in the affirmative, please explain.

Simple enough, but read the answer, and you tell me…

excelsior-response-to-doc-no-116.pdf

I don’t see it as saying anything more than “it COULD capture if we wanted it to and by design IGCC makes it easier, so yes, costs are incorporated because IGCC design is incorporated…” Oh, right, ok… good answer… sigh… Doesn’t sound like an engineer response to me!

Hooray! Another edition of the Grand Rapids Herald Review hits the streets. Than Tibbets is going for “Reporter of the Year” award, and by the time he’s through this grist mill called Mesaba, maybe more! He’s the one up there who does the digging, who actually READS these piles of testimony and documents, and then digs a little more, talks to the people involved. Unlike other cockatiel cage liners up there, the Grand Rapids Herald Review goes beyond corporate press releases, beyond ghostwritten promotional pieces submitted as “guest columns” and it shows. What’ll it take to get the other papers up there to do that hard work?

Hot off the press in the Grand Rapids Herald Review, the full version now posted online:

Mesaba project faces opposition in own industry

Grand Rapids Herald-Review

Posted online: Monday, November 27th, 2006 08:18:43 AM

As the Mesaba Energy project creeps forward, Excelsior Energy officials are not only finding resistance from some local residents, but also from its own industry.

Excelsior is seeking to build a 600-megawatt, coal-fired power plant near Taconite based on coal gasification technology.

In other words, the $2 billion plant would convert solid coal into a synthetic gas before burning it to make electricity, a process the company claims will allow it to remove more pollutants than a traditional coal-fired power plant.

But the company Excelsior wants to sell its electricity to isnâ??t so keen on buying it.

Officials from Xcel Energy said if their company was forced into a power purchase agreement â?? the contract that Excelsior trying to secure through the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission â?? Xcelâ??s customers would see large increases in their utility rates.

â??Our estimate is that (the power purchase agreement) would raise our customersâ?? rates in the range from eight to 12 percent in the first year (of the plantâ??s operation) over and above what they would otherwise be,â? said Judy Poferl, Xcelâ??s director of government and regulatory affairs. â??Requiring Xcel to purchase from them would not be in the public interest.â?

Excelsior officials need the stateâ??s public utilities commission to find that the project is â??not contrary to the public interestâ?, as well as finding that it â??is or is likely to be a least-cost resource,â? both stipulations outlined by state legislation passed in 2003.

And although it is not the only relevant issue, Excelsior officials are counting on that open-ended time frame to swing the commissionâ??s decision in their favor, according testimony by University of Minnesota Professor of Law Jim Chen filed on behalf of Excelsior.

Chen notes in his testimony that Minnesota Power and the Big Stone Partners (a coalition of seven utility owners looking to build a coal-fired power plant in South Dakota) oppose the Mesaba project, even though they are not involved in the proposed power purchase agreement between Excelsior and Xcel.

â??It is striking that all of the regulated utilities in this state are actively opposing an innovative energy project with unprecedented levels of legislative support at the state and federal levels,â? Chen writes. â??The best explanation is the simplest: Incumbent utility companies understand the public interest to be coextensive with one thing â?? maximizing the return on their shareholdersâ?? investment.â?

Poferl said Xcel currently has a separate proposal before the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission that would meet its customersâ?? energy needs.

â??We have a 375-megawatt baseload need beginning in 2015,â? she said. â??We proposed to meet that need through Manitoba Hydro combined with new wind resources. If we couple hydroelectricity with wind, we can get the equivalent of a baseload plant, if not better, with no emissions.â?

Baseload is the term utility companies use to describe constant electricity needs. During periods of high electricity demand, power companies can start up additional â??peakingâ? power plants temporarily to meet the additional demand.

Poferl added that the Mesaba project would require Xcel to purchase 600 megawatts of electricity, more than Xcelâ??s customers are projected to need. That, combined with Excelsiorâ??s earliest proposed in-service date for the Mesaba project coming in 2011, four years before Xcel customers need the electricity, result in further increases in electricity costs, she said.

Excelsior CEO Tom Micheletti said Xcel officials are hiding behind other proposals, including upgrading an older coal-fired power plant.

â??On the surface it sounds good, he said. â??But when you look behind the real proposal, it still doesnâ??t solve the stateâ??s long-term need for new baseload additions.â?

Micheletti said if Xcel did not purchase power from the Mesaba project, the end result will be â??more nuclear waste, more mercury and particulate matter emissions, and an old coal pant that you possibly capture carbon dioxide from.â? Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere traps in heat, a process known as the greenhouse effect, which contributes to the potential for global warming.

Poferl said she disagreed with Excelsiorâ??s emissions claims, as Excelsior officials are not proposing to sequester carbon or deal with carbon emissions, she said.

â??Thatâ??s really the main advantage of this technology,â? she said. â??When you look at the things (Excelsior officials) have said out in the general public arena compared to the documents in the proposal, they arenâ??t always quite in sync.â?

As for Minnesota Power and the other utilities opposing the Mesaba project, Micheletti said it all comes down to stifling competition and innovation.

â??The biggest polluter in northern Minnesota is saying that weâ??re the environmental problem,â? he said. â??Itâ??s incredible the things theyâ??ll say and do.â?

First, Chen’s testimony — it’s not really testimony, it’s a legal argument, and a prelude to what we’ll see in the Mesaba briefs (snorting allowed). Chen was focused on “shareholders,” and it’s obvious that a corporations primary responsibility is to its shareholders, but he’s not addressing ratepayers, which has been the primary focus of Xcel’s testimony. Xcel’s RATEPAYERS are the ones who will take it in the shorts if this PPA is ordered, not the shareholders, because Xcel is regulated, and they will be able to pass those increased costs to the ratepayers, the shareholders are protected and will get a return. Here’s Chen’s legal argument: j-chen-rebuttal-testimony.pdf

These claims of “unprecedented legislative support” are such utter bullshit. Chen wasn’t there, obviously. Let’s get real, folks. It was a deal, not support. Mesaba didn’t make it through the 2002 session, it didn’t make it through the 2003 session, DUH. I was there. It got a lot further than it should have due to all the ties, chips called in, strongarming and whatever leverage that the “Two Lobbyists and a Wife” could muster, but it didn’t go anywhere until the Special Session, when “my” Senator Murphy, the Senator from Xcel, tacked it on the Prairie Island bill. That tipped the scales. On the Thursday it failed, as it struggled to resurface and we got it shot down, one enviro pompus-ass was taken to task about it in the hallway, some red-faced bully “whose name I can’t recall” was yelling “WE HAD A DEAL!!!” abusing someone who had no part! Hilarious! But then a few days later it passed, and we’re stuck with these inexplicable clauses that we’re now struggling with. The Mesaba Project did not receive unprecedented support, it was acquiesence rather than fight the good fight and say no to more nuclear waste. It’s the price Xcel paid to get Prairie Island done, but here’s what we’ve all got to be clear on. very clear — Xcel may have done a deal with the devil, which serves them right, but now they’ve got to find a way to deal with it — they never expected Mesaba would get as far as it has. They can’t very well argue too strenuously, though their pre-filed testimony is GREAT, very specific, dead-on in describing in technicolor what a phenomenally bad idea this is, so we should get that message out to the PUC loud and clear. BUT this is a deal between Xcel and Excelsior, the legislature wasn’t giving their “unprecedented support” to Excelsior, they were caving to shove aside Prairie Island, the one thing they did NOT want to revisit, and this neat little deal that got Xcel the Range votes they needed meant they all could avoid wrassling with nuclear waste. Legislators don’t have the capacity or expertise to deal with the harder questions and technical issues, those that have no easy solution, so when someone offers a way out, they grab it. And here we are, stuck with that legislative result. BUT THE PUC IS NOT BOUND BY XCEL AND EXCELSIOR’S DEAL. The PUC is in a different position entirely. The PUC must make a decision that is in the public interest. The PUC must make a decision that this is a prudent investment, that it is a least cost resource, that it has an economic development benefit, not detriment. The PUC had the sense to frown on TRANSLink sufficient to make it go away — the legislature doesn’t have that same good sense and it passed the codification of TRANSLink, the 2005 Transmission Omnibus Bill from Hell. The PUC has a different charge than the legislature, different review and consideration process, and the PUC is accountable for their decisions, because their decisions go right into the rates. The PUC can look at this legislative deal for what it is, and look at the Power Purchase Agreement for what it is. As Mike Krikava, Xcel’s attorney in this (and MP’s in Arrowhead) is so fond of saying, “It is what it is.” And this PPA is not in the public interest (translation: LOAD OF CRAP).

Second, it’s that time of year, and I’ve got two big bags of coal in my trunk, but I think somebody’s fixin’ to get a muzzle rather than a lump of coal… That Micheletti chooses to bash Minnesota Power (and we all know of my love for MP and what I’ve done to a few of their witnesses!), when MP is making major improvements to Boswell, I was there when the PUC approved it, doesn’t Micheletti know of their emission reduction program? They pollute a lot, and the’re working on reducing emissions, and they’re not doing it on the dole like some people… Bad move, bubba…

Huh??? What’s going on here? It’s unprecedented — at yesterday’s Prehearing Conference, we reached a (reluctant on my part) “global agreement” that the evidentiary hearing on the Excelsior Mesaba coal gasification project isn’t happening. We’re going forward on the basis of the prefiled testimony and exhibits, and given that those of us who don’t have resources, budgets, staff, etc., get our evidence in on cross-examination, we’ll be introducing all the Exhibits we can find, that is those “in the public domain.” For our exhibits thus far, go here www.mncoalgasplant.com/ppa.html and scroll way down to MCGP Exhibits. The most popular ones for download right now are the Excelsior Scherner Presentations to NM-SPG!

There will be public hearings in December:

December 18, 2006
1 p.m. & 6 p.m.
PUC Lg. Hearing Room
121 – 7th Place East, 3rd Floor
St. Paul, MN

December 19, 2006
1 p.m. & 5 p.m.
Hoyt Lakes Areana
Hoyt Lakes, MN

December 20, 2006
1 p.m. & 5 p.m.
Taconite Community Center
Taconite, MN

Noteworthy too is that the crucial cost information on CO2 capture and sequestration will remain “Trade Secret.” What a load of crap — it’s just a way of delaying the societal recognition that carbon capture and sequestration ain’t a happenin’ thang… and so I’m digging and digging on the internet to find that same info. Why? Well, for example, look at all that Joyce Foundation pro-coal gasification money going into the new enviro mantra, “IGCC is good with CO2 capture and sequestration” and coal gasification junkets to Europe. And of course the Joyce Foundation’s CCX — they didn’t corner the market on CO2 trading, they MADE it! Carbon capture and sequestration in Minnesota is an utterly delusional pipedream, everyone working on this case knows it’s an utterly delusional pipedream, including MCEA, Fresh Energy, Waltons — we all have this info and know it. So fair warning — I’d better not hear any of these groups singing that IGCC mantra!

And for everyone who’s dying to know what generation is proposed, here’s a spreadsheet of the MISO Queue in sortable Xcel. Why? Because then you can ask “How much wind is proposed for Illinois?” and find out that it’s 8,682.4, so when anyone tells you they’ll be building wind in South Dakota and shipping it to Illinois, you can confidently say, “I don’t think so!” Here’s the Excel MISO Generation Spreadsheet!

miso-queue-with-coal-separated-out-sheet-2.xls

Have fun and pay attention!!!

Here’s Excelsior’s Tom Micheletti and CAMP’s Charlotte Neigh!

From the Hibbing Daily Tribune (article not available online):

TACONITE â?? A group of concerned residents have joined together and formed a nonprofit corporation with one main purpose â?? to stand in opposition to the Mesaba Energy project, a proposed coal gasification power generation facility to be located in Taconite.
The group called Citizens Against the Mesaba Project (CAMP), which is co-chaired by Charlotte Neigh and Ed Anderson, was formed earlier this year in response to Excelsior Energyâ??s proposal for the project.

â??CAMPâ??s task is to inform local residents about what this project will cost them and to let people know that it can be stopped,â? said Neigh. â??We need to encourage them to speak out about their concerns to their elected officials and to the government agencies involved in approving the applications.â?

There is no membership costs for being a part of the group; five people serve on the board of directors.

â??The requirement for membership is you support our mission,â? said Neigh. The group formed after the proposed site for the project changed from Hoyt Lakes to Taconite, and a presentation on the project was given in Trout Lake Township by representatives of Excelsior Energy. Neigh said a group of people had questions and concerns so they talked about what could be done and formally
organized.

After a few meetings, the group developed a mission statement which includes five main points as to why it opposes the construction of the 600 megawatt power plant. The mission statement details reasons behind their opposition, including:

â?¢ Diminishing recreational lake country near the scenic highway; exacerbating global warming, and polluting water and air;
â?¢ Large amounts of diesel fuel will be burned to mine and transport coal to generate electricity that is not needed and will require new transmission lines to the Twin Cities;
â?¢ Electrical transmission lines, railroads, pipelines and roads for water and natural gas shouldnâ??t be pushed on private property owners through eminent domain to benefit a private corporation;
â?¢ Without the more than $50 million in public funding and $800 million needed in federal loans, the financial risk is too high for the private sector to take on;
â?¢ And with only 107 permanent jobs, it does not offset the environmental and financial costs.

â??We developed these five points that everyone agreed were accurate and showed the various priorities that different people had,â? said Neigh. â??That was a starting point for the group, which has evolved as more information has been available.â?

While outlining their main concerns, Neigh said the primary role of coal gasification is the ability to capture and remove carbon dioxide. â??It is undisputed that carbon dioxide cannot be sequestered at this site,â? she explained. â??Thus this benefit is lost, and all of the other pollutants from combusting coal negatively affect the environment and health locally.â?

Neigh said another concern is possible contamination of Canisteo Lake due to the discharge water from the plant, which would close it to recreational activity.

â??Canisteo is currently a popular recreational lake with water so clean that it has about 50 feet of visibility and has been stocked with trout,â? she said. â??The current plan for the excess Canisteo water is to gradually flush out Trout Lake, which would benefit from improved water quality. The contaminated water may infiltrate the aquifer and contaminate the wells used to supply water to the
residents of Bovey and Coleraine.�

Cost are another bother. Officials are seeking approximately $55 million for infrastructure including a service road, railroad, natural gas pipeline and sewer, and water service for the project.
â??Although some of this might be paid with state bonding funds, Itasca County and the cities of Taconite and Nashwauk are planning to provide these services, likely incurring debt to do so,â? noted Neigh. â??If the project fails and defaults on its obligations, the property taxpayers would have to pay off any remaining debt.â?

While outlining another concern of CAMP, Neigh said the plan is to send the electricity produced by the first two units to NSP/Xcel Energy for use in the Twin Cities, which she added has no direct local benefit.

â??The existing transmission grid cannot accommodate this power without major upgrades and/or additional lines, which will cost hundreds of millions of dollars,â? she stated. â??This additional cost, which will eventually be paid by electric customers, is not included in the scope of the project.â?

She said the infrastructure directly supporting the project and the transmission lines will require that private property, mostly likely to be taken through eminent domain.

Another worry of CAMP, according to Neigh, is that the plant has been exempted from the utility personal property tax. The project has also been granted other tax breaks by the state and is seeking more, according to Neigh.

â??These costs, both financial and otherwise, will be borne by the public,â? she said. â??The relatively few jobs that will be created for local residents do not offset these costs. Any profits will belong exclusively to a for-profit corporation.â?

Neigh said CAMP is trying to provide information about the project to people in the region with the main message that â??this project is not in the best interest of Itasca County and the people who live there â?? and it should and can be stopped.â?

â??As we go around talking to people we find that they have a vague concern about it and they donâ??t know very much about it,â? said Neigh. â??They also believe it is already a done deal, and there is no point of paying attention because you canâ??t do anything about it anyway. We need to make it understood there are things that need to be done about it and give them the reasons things need to be done about it.â?

Neigh said they are trying to get information out to the general public, as well as the elected officials, about what the project will cost and to let them know it can be stopped.

â??This is a tremendously complex project,â? she noted. â??We find that many people are uneasy about it, but are too busy to study it well enough to understand its flaws and its serious ramifications. Public opinion matters. Elected officials will respond if they know that a significant portion of their constituents share a position.â?

The Department of Commerce will hold a public hearing regarding environmental issues at 7 p.m. Aug. 22 at Taconite City Hall and on Aug. 23 in Hoyt Lakes.