Legalectric

It’s out,  and although the court rejected the arguments of Excelsior Energy saying they didn’t get enough out of the PUC, and rejected the arguments of Minnesota Power and Xcel Energy, the bottom line is that the Public Utilities Commission won, their Order stands, and so in a small way, Excelsior Energy has “won.”

There were three issues before the court:

I. Did the commission err in determining that the Mesaba project is an IEP under Minn. Stat. § 216B.1694, subd. 1?

II. Does Minn. Stat. § 216B.1694, subd. 2(a)(7), require the commission to undertake its traditional public-interest evaluation?

III. Was the commission’s application of the IEP statute to Excelsior’s PPA arbitrary and capricious or unsupported by substantial evidence?

Bottom line?

We defer to the commission’s expertise as to the definition of the technical term ―traditional technologies.‖ The commission’s decision that the Mesaba project is an IEP is supported by substantial evidence.
The commission has the statutory authority to consider the public interest in evaluating the terms and conditions of an IEP’s PPA. Its decisions in this regard are supported by substantial record evidence and are not arbitrary and capricious. Accordingly, the commission did not err in concluding that Excelsior’s proposed power-purchase agreement with Xcel is not in the public interest under Minn. Stat. § 216B.1694, subd. 2(a)(7).

Here’s the full decision, issued today at 10:00 a.m.

May 18, 2010 Excelsior Energy-Mesaba Project Appellate Decision

Word is out – tomorrow we’ll know whether the Appellate Court thinks that Excelsior Energy qualifies as an Innovative Energy Project under Minnesota statutes.  Stay tuned…

The MAPP line, PEPCO’s Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway transmission line project through Maryland and Delaware, is in the news again. But why???  Where the line is not needed, and it’s withdrawn by PJM and PEPCO, why is this being accepted?  Why is this regarded as a “win?”

Remember that they pulled the project?

PEPCO letter 1.8.09 to suspend MAPP, includes 1.8.09 letter from PJM’s Herling

And before that, the part from Indian River to Salem was eliminated?

MAPP – PEPCO-PJM Press Release May 19, 2009

The May, 2009, Press Release says:

According to Gausman, PJM has also reviewed the need for the section of the line that would run from Delmarva Power’s Indian River substation near Millsboro, Del., to Salem, N.J., and has decided to move this portion of the line into its “continuing study” category. This means that the reconfigured MAPP line will now extend approximately 150 miles from northern Virginia, across southern Maryland and the Chesapeake Bay, and terminate at Indian River. The change would likely reduce the total project cost from $1.4 billion to $1.2 billion.

And then there’s the report that shows there’s no need, that demand is downdowndown, that “congestion” is downdowndown, that price of electricity is downdowndown, that demonstrates that the market concept that they’re all drooling over will have them aspirating their aspirations:

Marketing Analytics – PJM State of the Market Report 2009

So then why did they send out a press release last week:

PEPCO May 5, 2010 Press Release – MAPP Transmission Line

…which every Peninsula news outlet gave pretty much verbatim coverage?

And then there’s the PJM RTEP 2009, released February 26, 2010.

So here’s how their press release looks after the papers get it:

Delaware utilities: Plan takes power line under Choptank

Proposed route would lead to little disruption in Del.

By AARON NATHANS • The News Journal • May 8, 2010

Delmarva Power’s planned high-voltage power line would be submerged below the Choptank River through Dorchester County, Md., the utility announced this week.

The Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway would run from Virginia to Maryland, across the Chesapeake Bay and end at the Indian River Power Plant in Millsboro.

It is being planned by Pepco Holdings Inc., parent company of Delmarva.

The company reports it has been successful in acquiring 90 percent or more of the rights of way needed to build the line through Dorchester County.

This portion of the line would run below the Choptank River, making landfall east of Cambridge, Md. It would continue underground briefly before moving above ground northeast of U.S. 50. It would cross the Nanticoke River near Vienna, Md.

In Delaware, the power line would be built on existing rights of way, approaching from Mardela Springs, Md., moving toward Delmar, and finishing in Millsboro.

Delmarva would not need to widen existing rights of way or clear any vegetation in Delaware, spokesman Matt Likovich said. The existing poles along this route would be replaced to support the more powerful lines, he said.

The portion of the line that runs through Maryland requires approval from federal and state agencies, including the Maryland Public Service Commission. Delaware’s PSC has no such oversight authority.

“We’ve spent a great deal of time listening to the citizens of Dorchester County,” said Bob Jubic, project manager. “With input from landowners, residents, environmental groups and government officials, we believe that the Choptank Route is the best choice as it minimizes the impact on the environment, agriculture and culturally significant areas in the county.”

Pepco Holdings has already announced the route for the MAPP project on the other side of Chesapeake Bay. About 20 of the 72 miles there would need to have new structures installed, and would also need new structures to cross the Potomac and Patuxent rivers.

PSC approval is unlikely to come until PJM Interconnection, the regional power grid manager, decides next month whether new power lines will be needed to ensure electric reliability in the region. Delmarva officials say they are not waiting for that green light to plan for the line, which they hope to have in service in June 2014.

Delaware PSC Chairwoman Arnetta McRae wrote a letter to PJM last month expressing the commission’s opinion that the project should go ahead on schedule to relieve reliability and cost concerns, and to provide a future pathway for offshore wind power to flow through the area.

Maps of the route through Dorchester County will be on public display at the Holiday Inn Express in Cambridge, Md., on Wednesday from 4 to 8 p.m. during an information session with the company. For more information, call the MAPP office at (410) 221-6207 or visit www.powerpathway.com.

Now read the other “articles” and tell me if there’s an echo in the room:

Underwater power line route suggested
Proposal under Chesapeake avoids refuge

By Calum McKinney • Staff Writer • May 6, 2010

But the day before it was better, with some original quotes:

Delmarva Power proposes Choptank route for MAPP project

(with NO byline)

I read with horror news of  Rep. Bill Hilty’s amendment eliminating the moratorium on new nuclear generating plants that passed in a House Ominous Bill this week.  WHAT ARE THESE YAHOOS THINKING?  The Senate already approved it, and now the House… and I just can’t see Pawlenty doing anything but signing it with glee.

(sudden feeling of ice picks going through temples… buried in brain… electricity applied…)

AAAAAAAAGH!

Is this the “price” of the rollback of exemptions of utilities from eminent domain laws?  Is it an attempt to look like they’re repealing it when “conditions” mean it won’t happen? (like those that said Obama really doesn’t mean what he’s saying about coal gasification or transmission, he knows better)  Is it more of the same deal-making that took the Renewable Development Fund away from PrairIe Island Indian Community, or the enviro sell-outs that gave us the 2005 Transmission bill?  Minnesota’s second nuclear waste storage facility at Monticello, now two piles piling with no plan in sight, PERMANENT?

What I’m hearing about this from various little birdies….

… is NOT encouraging — ooooohhhhhhh do I have a headache…

… apparently NO ONE OBJECTED!

NO ONE OBJECTED?!?!?!?!

AAAAAAAAGH!

Here’s the bill as it is on the Senate site:

SF 2971

Here’s how Rep. Bill Hilty, Chair of House Energy, amended it:

Hilty, Faust, Norton and Obermueller moved to amend S. F. No. 2971, the third engrossment, as amended, as follows:

Page 4, after line 11, insert:

“Sec. 4.  [216B.1695] NUCLEAR POWER PLANT; COST RECOVERY.

(a) The commission may not allow any of the following costs attributable to the construction of a nuclear generating plant begun after July 1, 2010, to be recovered from Minnesota ratepayers until the plant begins operating at a monthly load capacity factor of at least 85 percent:

(1) planning, design, safety, environmental, or engineering studies undertaken prior to construction; or

(2) the costs of obtaining regulatory approval, including permits, licenses and any other approval required prior to construction from federal, state and local authorities.

(b) The commission may not allow any of the following costs attributable to the construction of a nuclear generating plant begun after July 1, 2010, to be recovered from Minnesota ratepayers:

Journal of the House – 98th Day – Thursday, May 6, 2010 – Top of Page 11584

(1) any construction costs exceeding the projected construction cost of the generating plant and any ancillary facility constructed by the utility to temporarily or permanently store nuclear waste generated by the plant, as identified in the utility’s certificate of need application submitted under section 216B.243;

(2) the costs of insuring the plant against accidents that exceed the cost of insurance for a fossil fuel plant of equivalent capacity; or

(3) contributions from the plant to provide and maintain local fire protection and emergency services to the plant in case of an accident.

(c) Except for regulatory costs of state agencies, no revenues from taxes or fees imposed by the state of Minnesota may be used to pay for any portion of the preconstruction, construction, maintenance, or operating costs of a nuclear generating plant, or to assume any financial risk associated with an accidental release of radioactivity from the generating plant or an ancillary facility constructed by the utility that owns the generating plant to temporarily or permanently store nuclear waste generated by the plant.

Sec. 5.  Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 216B.243, subdivision 3b, is amended to read:

 Subd. 3b.  Nuclear power plant; new construction prohibited; relicensing.  (a) The commission may not issue a certificate of need for the construction of a new nuclear-powered electric generating plant provided that the certificate of need application contains a separate estimate of preconstruction and construction costs that does not include any of the costs identified in section 216B.1695, paragraphs (a) and (b).

(b) Any certificate of need for additional storage of spent nuclear fuel for a facility seeking a license extension shall address the impacts of continued operations over the period for which approval is sought.”

Renumber the sections in sequence and correct the internal references

Amend the title accordingly.

Way below is the list of yeas and nays, do send each of them a missive:

MEMBERS OF MINNESOTA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

The ones who voted against it are the strangest set of bedfellows!  But KUDOS TO THEM!

If you click on this to look at the whole back and forth with amendments, scroll to p. 11579 to start.  Here’s the vote:

S. F. No. 2971, A bill for an act relating to energy; making technical changes and modifying provisions related to utility report filings, hydrogen energy projects, weatherization programs, high-voltage transmission lines, public utility commission assessments, and utility metering for supportive housing; removing obsolete and redundant language; authorizing individuals and entities to take certain easements in agricultural land; providing for certain reporting requirements; providing for wind and solar easements; amending Minnesota Statutes 2008, sections 16E.15, subdivision 2; 117.225; 216B.16, by adding a subdivision; 216B.241, subdivision 2; 216B.812, subdivision 2; 216C.264; 216E.03, subdivision 7; 216E.18, subdivision 3; 326B.106, subdivision 12; 500.221, subdivisions 2, 4;
Journal of the House – 98th Day – Thursday, May 6, 2010 – Top of Page 11596

Minnesota Statutes 2009 Supplement, section 117.189; Laws 2008, chapter 296, article 1, section 25; repealing Minnesota Statutes 2008, sections 216C.19, subdivisions 2, 3, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20; 216C.262; Minnesota Statutes 2009 Supplement, section 216C.19, subdivision 17.

The bill was read for the third time, as amended, and placed upon its final passage.

The question was taken on the passage of the bill and the roll was called.  There were 86 yeas and 43 nays as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative were:

Abeler
Anderson, S.
Anzelc
Atkins
Beard
Benson
Bigham
Bly
Brown
Brynaert
Bunn
Carlson
Cornish
Dill
Dittrich
Doty
Eken
Faust
Fritz
Gardner
Hansen
Haws
Hayden
Hilstrom
Hilty
Hosch
Howes
Huntley
Jackson
Johnson
Juhnke
Kahn
Kalin
Kath
Kelly
Knuth
Koenen
Laine
Lanning
Lenczewski
Liebling
Lieder
Lillie
Loeffler
Loon
Mahoney
Marquart
Masin
McFarlane
McNamara
Morgan
Morrow
Murdock
Murphy, E.
Murphy, M.
Nelson
Newton
Nornes
Norton
Obermueller
Olin
Otremba
Pelowski
Persell
Peterson
Poppe
Reinert
Rosenthal
Rukavina
Ruud
Sailer
Scalze
Sertich
Simon
Slawik
Slocum
Solberg
Sterner
Swails
Thao
Thissen
Tillberry
Ward
Welti
Westrom
Spk. Kelliher

Those who voted in the negative were:

Anderson, B.
Anderson, P.
Brod
Buesgens
Champion
Clark
Davids
Davnie
Dean
Demmer
Dettmer
Doepke
Downey
Eastlund
Falk
Garofalo
Gottwalt
Greiling
Gunther
Hamilton
Hausman
Holberg
Hoppe
Hornstein
Hortman
Kiffmeyer
Kohls
Mack
Magnus
Mariani
Mullery
Paymar
Peppin
Sanders
Scott
Seifert
Severson
Shimanski
Torkelson
Urdahl
Wagenius
Winkler
Zellers

You know life is good in Minnesota when the Supreme Court slaps The Green Chameleon, Gov. Tim Pawlenty!

(FYI, it’s been a busy week in CapX 2020 transmission line land, the scoping hearings, today is Cannon Falls.  Check it out on www.nocapx2020.info)

Here’s the decision:

Supreme Court Unallotment Decision

In short:

In the context of this limited constitutional grant of gubernatorial authority with regard to appropriations, we cannot conclude that the Legislature intended to authorize the executive branch to use the unallotment process to balance the budget for an entire biennium when balanced spending and revenue legislation has not been initially agreed upon by the Legislature and the Governor. Instead, we conclude that the Legislature intended the unallotment authority to serve the more narrow purpose of providing a mechanism by which the executive branch could address unanticipated deficits that occur after a balanced budget has previously been enacted.