.

Yes, and it’s about time — Concerned River Valley Citizens, who fought the Chisago Transmission Project for over a decade, have intervened in the Lent Township and Chisago County proceedings about this project.

Lent Township and Chisago County are negotiating a “development agreement” and as it comes together, WITHOUT PUBLIC INPUT, a lot of important issues are being decided that these local governments have no business or authority to decide without public input.  Lighting is within a township’s zoning jurisdiction, but light pollution, which will certainly be an issue, is also an issue for the PUC.   Noise is an issue for the ownship, but it is also under jurisdiction (with too loose standards) of the MPCA.  There will be an air permit, and I sure hope that puts limits on fuel oil use.  Any development agreement presumes that the plant will be built, and that’s not a presumption CRVC is comfortable with.

There are too many unanswered questions.  Where is the need for this plant?  Xcel’s not about to be buying any electricity from them anytime soon, and LS Power was shown the door.  What is proposed?  LS Power can’t/won’t even tell state regulators with any specificity, and they’ve been told go away until they’ve got something solid.

What are they proposing?  Hard to tell…  there’s no application to the PUC yet, which is another reason all this “pre-application” dealing with local governments is a problem.  They’re doing deals with local governments before it’s at all clear what’s proposed, and without knowing what’s proposed, so how can any agreements be made?  Who in the township or county has any experience with big natural gas plants and associated infrastructure like gas pipelines, water pipelines, transmission… well, some in Chisago County have a lot of transmission expertise!   We do know some things from public documents, i.e., the MISO interconnection queue documents say 855MW gas with fuel oil back up, the legislation passed, again, without public notice or input, specifies no more than 780MW Summer Capacity, and a recent LS Power presentation:

September 2009 – LS Power – Sunrise River Energy Station

The problem is that the local governments are making agreements, which include concessions and plans, without public input, and by making these agreements, they implicitly approve this project, with some conditions, which means that LS Power can move this project towards reality without the input necessary to thoroughly vet the application.  Who is Chisago County to make an agreement regarding water use when it’s also an issue within DNR jurisdiction?  They tried to pass the utility personal property tax exemption legislation without even letting local governments know the revenue impacts and how utility personal property tax Host Fee Agreements work, or that they even exist… so the question — who is protecting the public interest in all of these agreements?  Hence the CRVC intervention.

And just for the record, in one of the articles they quoted an LS Power rep as saying the only emission is steam.  WHAT??!!!???   Let’s see what your air permit application says… duh… let’s have a look at NOx… How stupid do they think we are?  STEAM?!?!?  Yeah, like the Prairie Island plant is a “steam plant.”

Here’s CRVC’s Lent Township Intervention:

Notice of Intervention – Cover

Intervention – Town of Lent

Exhibit A – MISO G135 Feasibility Study

Exhibit B – MISO Transition – Fasibility Analysis Posting G901-G999Exhibit C – June 16 Lent Township Board of Supervisors Meeting Minutes

Exhibit C – June 16 Lent Township Board of Supervisors Meeting Minutes

Exhibit D – July 30 – Hundreds attend meeting to learn about power plant

Exhibit E – February 17 Lent Township Board of Supervisors Meeting

Exhibit F – May 19 Lent Township Board of Supervisors Meeting

Exhibit G – April 21 Lent Township Board of Supervisors Meeting

Exhibit H – July 21 Lent Township Board of Supervisors Meeting

Exhibit I – August 18 Lent Township Board of Supervisors Meeting

And here’s CRVC’s Chisago County Intervention:

Intervention – Chisago County

Exhibit A – MISO G135 Feasibility Study

Exhibit B – MISO Transition – Feasibility Analysis Posting G901-999

Exhibit C – April 15 Official Proceedings

Exhibit D – County Attorney Correspondence

Exhibit E – Memo Chisago Co Environmental Services & Zoning

Exhibit F – Letter – Sunrise River June 30

Exhibit G – National Park Service Letter July 29

Exhibit H – Chisago Co Water Plan Policy Team Minutes August 10

Exhibit I – Technical Memo – Barr Engineering – Test Well 1 Geology and Well Summary

Exhibit J – Water Team Recommendation of EIS August 11

Exhibit K – Chisago Co Board Minutes August 19

Exhibit L – September 2 Official Proceedings

Exhibit M – Lent Land Use Regulation – Chapter 1

ALL DOGS HAVE BEEN PLACED

So says the voicemail and numerous commenters!

Whew!

********************

Texas German shepherd Rescue “Camp Wolfgang” closing Oct 30, 2009

October 7, 11:46 AMTacoma Dogs ExaminerPenny Eims

Remember Baron, the German Shepherd with that big ugly tumor?

Well, it’s his birthday today!  He’s 12, catching up with my Kenya, and Krie is not just a few months behind.  12 is a big deal for a GSD.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, BARON!!!

MAY YOU HAVE MANY MORE!!!

How come you’re not wearing the collander or lampshade?   Oh…  later, eh?

Now, back to CapX 2020 land…

.

Apparently Jonathan Travers, “Engineer of Knowledge” is another utility toady or self-declared energy wonk, and thinks I’ve got my head implanted regarding my comments about the MAPP line and about PSE&G’s dissing Midwest transmission.  EH?  I’d say my Google Analyics stats say otherwise.  And then there’s the little energy birdie who admitted the other day that Legalectric is one of his first stops in the morning!

Who is Jonathan Travers?  Haven’t a clue, his reputation does not exceed him!  Google’s got very little to say.  Hmmmmmmm…  There is a “Travers” on the Dorchester County Council, Ricky Travers.  This “Jonathan Travers,” he’s got a blog, Jonathan Travers Chronicles, with only a handful of postings that are focused on blasting opposition to the Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway (MAPP) transmission line, i.e., Dorchester County’s Dorchester Citizens for Safe Energy and Eastern Shore Land Conservancy, who are having some success in fighting the MAPP line, and though Travers’ blog’s banner states “Debate Through Logical Argumentation Only. Not For Flamers!” the level of discourse he’s posting is not even up to “Horse’s Ass Awards” and such:

As I see it, Ms. Nagel’s letter to The Daily Times identifying herself as the “President of Citizens for Safe Energy,” would be better off proclaiming herself as the President of the Dorchester’s chapter of the Mickey Mouse Club based on what I noted as her lack of understanding of electrical engineering per her comments.

Here are his comments about my MAPP post, “MAPP Transmission Line Under the Microscope” a couple weeks ago:

Submitted on 2009/10/04 at 9:18am

To the attention of Legalectric Blog.

You make the statement, “this transmission line is not needed.” Per logical argumentation, you make (sic) no backup facts to support this opening statement. As any English writing course teaches, this is just poor writing skills (sic). As it has been (sic) well documented by “The Public Service Commission” report (sic) released last December (sic) warned that the state could experience rolling blackouts as early as 2011 to helped (sic… really!) people understand the reason for MAPP’s conception. So with just your opening statement, you have negated your argument and quite poorly I might add (how “sic” can it be?).

Overland comments: “backup facts” about transmission line not needed can be found by searching this site for “decreased demand” and “PJM annual report” and PJM Load Capability.  Ummmm, Hello, I’m a writing major, and your comment about “poor writing skills” isn’t about writing, it’s about evidence that you want.  Don’t worry, it’s there, just look!  “Rolling blackouts” is hysteria, blown away by DEC’s annual Energy Plan, showing sharply decreased congestion on the Delmarva peninsula:

You then go on to post the article from the Star Democrat written by Dustin Holt who may have a journalistic degree but by his statements he has no knowledge of electrical engineering. I have spoken with Mr. Holt in the past and within a short amount of conversation, it was quite apparent that he did not even have the basic understanding of what he was writing about. Mr. Holt starts off by referencing statements from Libby Nagel who has self proclaimed herself (sic) president of the Dorchester Citizens for Safe Energy. It is my evaluation that with her lack of electrical engineering knowledge, Ms. Nagel would be better off proclaiming herself President of the Dorchester’s chapter of the Mickey Mouse Club (SIC!). So once again you have quoted a source that does not have adequate credential (sic) to even be speaking on the subject negating your argument again.

Overland comments: I posted the article as a good example of on-the-ground activism, where people work to increase awareness of their issue, and Dorchester Citizens for Safe Energy did a great job!  They got press coverage, their elected officials showed up, and pro-MAPP people are flailing wildly — that’s a measure of success!  Libby IS, not was, the President, and IS self-DESCRIBED President, she was elected President by the organization, it’s “described’ not “proclaimed.”  Your “evaluation” is really immaterial.  Ms. Nagel has all the “credential” necessary to speak as an affected community member and President of the primary opposition organization.  The article I posted says she’s the “Chairman,” and not “President.”  Really!

Let me try to explain it this way. If you run just one transmission route like Ms. Nagel is stating would be (sic) like having one extension cord with a hundred electrical appliances, tools, etc. plugged into it. It will not be long before you have overloaded the circuit causing a short circuit or even causing a fire. It is the diversification that the multiple routes provide so that the electrical load required by the Delmarva Peninsula (sic) is what makes the electrical grid secure and stable.

Overland comments:  This is such convoluted and tortured writing that it’s hard to tell where to put the “sic” parentheticals in.  WHEW!  Anyway, back to “substance.”  WTF?  I see only one reference to Ms. Nagel in the article, “Dorchester Citizens for Safe Energy Chairman Libby Nagel said the power line would require about a 200-foot right-of-way.” Nowhere in this article is Nagel advocating for “just one transmission route,” and I don’t think Nagle advocates for ANY transmission route, she’s stating that a new transmission line is not needed!

I would suggest that your readers can get the correct and accurate arguments with regards to MAPP at my site http://www.jonathantraverschronicles.blogspot.com/

Overland comment:  I would suggest that my readers check out the site and comment away!!!  Have at it. My readers will be able to easily dissect that site.

Good day,
Jonathan Travers

Oh, he’s not THAT Jon Travers???

OK, now on to his next comment, on the “PSEG’s Izzo disses Midwest Transmission” post :

Submitted on 2009/10/04 at 2:54pm

To the attention of Legalectric Blog.

In your earlier posting you made the statement, “PJM, the private utility transmission promotion entity, has admitted that the Indian River to Salem part of the line is not justified, and have taken it off their wish list.”

Counter Point:
To start off with PJM simply stands for Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Maryland and the state of Delaware has now (sic?) been included since its conception. PJM is an oversight committee (EH?) made up of knowledgeable people in the industry but they do not tell power utilities to build anything (EH?). It is the utilities (sic) to come up with their own plan to address the problem of the soon (sic) lack of electrical power for their regions. Again your statement you are passing on are (sic) incorrect(sic)  negating you (sic) argument.

Overland comment: PJM is more than a committee, it’s a formal business organization.  PJM IS the utilities, and per PSE&G testimony in the Susquehanna-Roseland case, PJM is telling them to build the line.  Now obviously PJM has no authority, but if they press the matter with FERC, FERC could direct the utilities to build it.  It’s much more than an “oversight” committee, it’s an organization that is comprised of utilities, and they not only address electric reliability issues, but they control and manipulate the electric market.  “Lack of electrical power?”  Somebody hasn’t been reading the SEC filings, reserve margins, and annual reports, EARTH TO MARS, there’s a substantial decrease in electrical use and need, we aren’t going to have a power shortage.  Project Mountaineer is not a plan of the individual utilities’ making. JCSP is not a plan of individual utilities, CapX is not a plan of individual utilities…

“A little knowledge is a very dangerous thing,” and the writer of this blog has demonstrated their sever (sic) lack of knowledge in this subject by the statements presented.”

Overland comment: Oh, uh-huh…

Now with this posting they are stating their case as if there is only one transmission line that needs to be considered. For those educated in electrical engineering, it is plain that the writer of this blog does not even have the basic understanding of Ohms Law. What MAPP is offering are multiple access points for electrical transmission routes.

Overland comment: Ummmmm, “they?”  And who is advocating for transmission?  This is the same thing that “Travers” says about Nagel, who said nothing of the sort.  This mantra does not fly.  Multiple access points?  For what generation?  Let’s get clear about that…

For anyone else whom (sic) should (sic) like to inform themselves more proficiently on this subject, I suggest you go to http://www.jonathantraverschronicles.blogspot.com/ where this has all been address (sic) before.

Thank you,
Jonathan Travers

************************************

Overland comment: Whoever wrote this is clearly not a native speaker/writer nor in any position to critique writing.  Content, well, anyone can criticize content, but I’d guess that “Travers” is a retired engineer or a newly imported engineer who has not had experience with the capitalist system and the shift of focus of PJM, MISO, etc., to economic dispatch, a market system, where economic considerations are primary, and where the game in transmission is how to build out as much as possible while shifting cost-allocation elsewhere, for someone else to pay, anyone.  Then PJM gets shot down by the 7th Circuit and all their transmission cost apportionment plans are in limbo.

Did I hear that right???

I’m fighting with PSEG out in New Jersey, representing Stop the Lines on the Susquehanna Roseland transmission line.  PSEG can be vile… but on this one point, PSEG’s Ralph Izzo is right. Now, if we can just get him to be consistent.

Transmission is not rocket science, and Izzo statements reflect that he understands what Midwest transmission is all about — $$$ and coal.  He and PSEG have joined the many who are standing up to Midwest transmission plans.  Now, is the Midwest paying attention?  As PUC Chair Boyd said at the last Legislative Energy Commission meeting, they need a solid business plan.  Guess what — they don’t have one, DUH!!!!  There’s no market (Doesn’t Chair Boyd or anyone else in the room think there’s something a little too cozy about Boyd advocating for transmission with MISO???).

Today at a conference, PSEG’s Izzo let loose and let them have it:

Izzo also outlines his opposition to transmission superhighway proposal. “A subsidized national build out of transmission is economically unjustified and, since it will be utilized significantly to also transport energy from coal plants, environmentally self-defeating,” said Izzo. “While purporting to help move green energy, the new lines would more often be moving electricity from coal plants to new markets in the East.”

Here’s some propaganda from PSEG:

FULL TEXT OF IZZO’S SPEECH

The Role of Transmission in a Clean Energy Economy

In short:

A national transmission build-out would cause more expensive projects to be built, enable coal plants to run more often, and hurt local efforts to promote renewable generation.  It also would create a new national bureaucracy and have a chilling effect on the development of new renewable projects while transmission routes are planned and built.

Now just who does this sound like?!?!?!?! Hilarious… dig this, though he’s not admitting the INTENTIONALITY of the transmission scam:

This physical reality results in an unintended consequence of building large superhighways of transmission lines that go far beyond delivering green power to the grid. It will provide access not just to renewable resources, but to all power plants in the surrounding region where the lines are built. For the Midwest Independent System Operator (MISO) market region, which currently generates more than 75 percent of its power from coal, coal plants also will gain new, additional access to eastern markets and higher prices. So, instead of Midwest renewable energy competing against Midwest coal-fueled electricity, both coal and green energy will travel along these new lines to more easterly markets and replace eastern renewables and eastern power generated with cleaner, but more expensive, natural gas, which is more prominent in the East. Greenhouse gas emission reduction targets will be more difficult to achieve, and it will put upward pressure on emission prices.

And this broad view so contradicts their Susquehanna-Roseland transmission plan, which is all about coal from Amos = it’s the NE part of “Line 1” in Project Mountaineer.  PSEG, you can’t have it both ways!  Let us hope that now that he’s spouting opposition to the Great Midwestern Transmission Scam he’ll see the scam of New Jersey transmission.  At least we’ll now have this to use.  THANK YOU, RALPH IZZO!