Legalectric

It was one of those weeks.   First CapX 2020 provides official notice that the Brookings-Hampton transmission line is delayed.  [Motion to Suspend Proceedings!]

Hot in the heels of CapX 2020’s notice of “delay” of the Brookings-Hampton transmission line, PSEG provides official notice that it is withdrawing their NJ DEP permit for the Susquehanna-Roseland transmission line:

Please take notice in accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:A12.6(f). Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G) is hereby amending the above-referenced permit applications submitted to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). PSE&G is withdrawing the applications for the section of the Project located to the west of the proposed Hopatcong Switching Station. The municipalities west of the Hopatcong Switching Station include Sparta Township, Byram Township, Andover Township, the Town of Newton, Fredon Township, Stillwater Township and Hardwick Township The company may resubmit a new application or applications to NJDEP for the western section of the Project at a later date.

It’s all here in their Notice to affected towns:

PSEG’s Notice of Withdrawal – NJ DEP

And here’s the real deal:

PSEG Amended NJ DEP Permit filed 5/14/10

The funniest part is this — AS IF!!!

We know that they’ve got a problem at the Delaware Water Gap… we know they’ve got a problem at the NJ DEP… Now I wonder… how much of the Pennsylvania part is withdrawn???

Just like the CapX 2020 transmission project, the Susquehanna-Roseland transmission project was approved as a whole, the studies used to justify it were on the project as a whole, the BPU decision approving the project was on the project as a whole… so what, now they can say they just don’t need that part???  I don’t think so…

Last week, well really for the last two months, Kenya has had a very rough time, and so have I.  She’s been with me for almost 8 years now, always with in the car, going to meetings, snoozing under my desk, eating carrots and apples, even barking at Matt Entenza’s father-in-law…  She’s going on 13, very old for a shep, and about two years ago, she was diagnosed with early stage renal failure.  I thought she was a goner, but she’s been taking Azodyl, a pee pill so she’s not, well, peeing, no way will I put her in diapers, and for the last year, she’s been unable to get upstairs.  Two months ago it got really bad and she pretty much couldn’t walk anymore, and we used a sling to get her in and out of the house, and carried her up the stairs.  Alan really loves the ol’ doggy and carts her around everywhere.  But a German Shepherd is not easy to cart around!

The last two weeks, she’s been barking all the time, and obviously not a happy pup, and I was miserable, “feeling her pain” and I couldn’t get anything done between her barking and needing attention constantly, here a carrot, then a drink, then go outside, and then a DQ for the dog, next thing you know, the day is gone.  She was so bad off that she started walking on the wrong sides of her toes.  I called the vet, and was prepared to have her put down, I couldn’t stand to watch her dragging herself around and flopping like a fish.  Alan didn’t want to let her go, and we checked to see if there was anything we could do.  The vet said she’s got back problems, and we decided to try this one last thing, and put her on prednisone — in just two days (he said we’d know if it helped in 72 hours) she is obviously better, and when she’s better, I’m better (try working with a miserable dog at your feet…).  She even purposefully corrected her gait, and put “the dirty side down” when going out yesterday.  All day yesterday she got up to drink and got up to go out all by herself, none of that barking to let us know she needed help.  LOOK MA, NO HANDS!  Like WOW!

Today we did the other part, we took her to the chiropractor.  Really…

Moe Bodyworks

We drove up to the cities, armed with her favorites — bananas and donuts — and Alan carried her in to meet Dr. Moses Sarah Smith, D.C. She went right to it and adjusted her, and knowing what I know from my destroyed back, poor Ken… her neck was off, and some mid back, but in the lumbar, she was a mess, and a hip was weird too, and even one of her shoulders.  You could hear the cracks.  The poor dear…  It hurt her a bit, but she didn’t get all snarly.  I swear she looks perkier.  We stopped on the way back for a bit of a picnic at Lock & Dam #2, Ken was such a happy dog laying in the grass admiring the big ball bird diverters on the shield wires on that line across the river…  she’s smiling again.  And when Ken’s smiling, I can kick Xcel ass!

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!

Long live Kenya!

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)