Legalectric

Otter Tail Power has withdrawn from Big Stone II.  Odd way to put it because Big Stone II IS Otter Tail Power.  OTP was the big one left in the game and now they’re gone.

Otter Tail Power has withdrawn from the Big Stone II coal plant.  Really?!?!?

Pinch me, I must be dreaming…

Here’s their post about it on their BSII site – love the euphemisims:

Big Stone II announces participant changes

Otter Tail Power Company withdraws; Project pursues new participants

(Fargo, ND – September 11, 2009)—The participating utilities announced today the withdrawal of Otter Tail Power Company from the Big Stone II Project, a planned 500-to-600-megawatt coal-fired power plant located near Milbank, South Dakota, and its associated transmission. The remaining participants emphasized that Big Stone II will go forward if sufficient participants can be found to join the project.

Tom Heller, CEO of Missouri River Energy Services, which has the project’s largest share, stated that Big Stone II is still the least-cost, environmentally sound baseload power plant for the remaining project participants. “Big Stone II is a fully permitted project that will provide participants’ customers with least-cost generation for decades. It will improve the emissions profile of the existing Big Stone Plant, and the transmission facilities will be sized to serve the region’s burgeoning wind energy development,” he said.

While Heller conveyed the project’s regret that Otter Tail had to withdraw, he said other potential new participants have expressed interest in joining the project and exploratory discussions are underway.

The current Big Stone II Project participants are Central Minnesota Municipal Power Agency, Heartland Consumers Power District, Missouri River Energy Services and Montana-Dakota Utilities Co.

In the first blurb to come over the wire, below, there’s one phrase that stands out:

have resulted in challenging credit
and equity markets that make proceeding with Big Stone II at this time
untenable for Otter Tail’s customers and shareholders.

I knew that financing was not happening and dependent on a big cash infusion from Bill Gates. Financing anything now is pert near impossible, hence the big cost allocation dust up for CapX lately, and Big Stone II was no exception.  Who on earth, who in their right mind, would invest in a coal plant today?  That falls squarely in the “HOW STUPID CAN WE BE” category, no doubt about it.

I‘ll post more as it turns up.  From Marketwatch:

Otter Tail Power Company Announces Withdrawal From Big Stone II

FERGUS
FALLS, Minn., Sep 11, 2009 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) — Otter Tail
Power Company today announced its withdrawal — both as a participating
utility and as the project’s lead developer — from Big Stone II, a
500-to-600-megawatt coal-fired power plant proposed for near Milbank,
South Dakota, with related transmission upgrades in South Dakota and
Minnesota.

According
to Otter Tail Power Company President and CEO Chuck MacFarlane, the
broad economic downturn coupled with a high level of uncertainty
associated with proposed federal climate legislation and existing
federal environmental regulation have resulted in challenging credit
and equity markets that make proceeding with Big Stone II at this time
untenable for Otter Tail’s customers and shareholders.

MacFarlane
explained that Big Stone II contractual agreements require a commitment
to proceed after the project receives all major permits, creating a
financial obligation on each party that agrees to go forward. “Each Big
Stone II participant is in a different position in terms of means and
impact of raising capital and mechanisms for recovering those costs
from customers,” he said. “Given the legislative and regulatory
uncertainties and current economic conditions, Otter Tail Power Company
is unwilling to create a binding financial obligation of approximately
$400 million for its share of the project at this time.”

Big
Stone II had been scheduled to be on line in 2011, and now the plant
would not begin operating until late 2015 at the earliest. MacFarlane
said that the company no longer could delay the project to obtain
greater clarity on — and to mitigate — risks unique to Otter Tail.
Accordingly, Otter Tail chose to withdraw and allow the others to
proceed. “We believe the project is important for the region, both in
terms of adding baseload power and enhancing regional reliability,”
MacFarlane said.

While
Otter Tail Power Company has invested more than $300 million in wind
energy generation during the last three years, MacFarlane added that
dispatchable generation remains an important need for Otter Tail Power
Company’s customers. As a result, over the next three to six months,
Otter Tail Power Company will continue to evaluate other options to
meet its customers’ need for reliable electricity.

MacFarlane
also expressed his company’s gratitude for the backing shown for the
project. “Our company appreciates the support that customers,
regulators, labor, business leaders, and political leadership have
shown the project. We especially thank South Dakota elected officials
and communities within the plant’s vicinity for their commitment,” he
said.

Potomac Appalachian Transmission Highline

The Washington Post says:

Allen Staggers, a spokesman for Allegheny Energy and the Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline, or PATH project, as it’s commonly known, said it was too soon to determine the effect of the ruling. “Our legal staff is reviewing the decision so we can determine how to proceed with next steps,” he said.

Allen Staggers — Ja, I’ll bet he sure does now!!!

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

Yes, “transmission from hell” is everywhere… here are some sites for opponents of the PATH line:

PATH of Destruction

People Against Transmission Hell-Lines

Pennsylvania Land Trust Association

Sierra Club’s “Pull the Plug on Coal by Wire”

Piedmont Environmental Council – Transmission

The Applicants who just got slapped up by Maryland:

Potomac Appalachian Transmission Highline

And here’s the TOADIES for PATH – dig the logo, compare with PATH:

Path Education & Awareness Team

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

Maryland’s Public Service Commission seems, indeed, to be dedicated to the public!  It has rejected the Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline, PATH, transmission project application.

The Baltimore Sun gets it:

PSC right to reject power line

In the Frederick News-Post:

State rejects PATH application

Maryland Commission Rejects PATH Transmission Application

Posted Thursday, September 10, 2009

Commission says state law requires that an “electric company” make the application.

Story by Pam Kasey

The Maryland Public Service Commission has rejected The Potomac Edison Co.’s application on behalf of PATH Allegheny Transmission Co. for authorization to construct the Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline for procedural reasons.

“The Public Utility Companies article authorizes us to issue a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) only to an ‘electric company,’ a status PATH undeniably lacks,” commission wrote in a Sept. 9 order.

“The law does not allow us to ignore or circumvent this requirement by granting a CPCN to Potomac Edison ‘on behalf of’ PATH when Potomac Edison will neither construct nor operate the proposed line,” the order reads.

The issue fundamentally is about what entity can properly make the application, said Allegheny spokesman Doug Colafella.

“We see it as a procedural decision based on interpretation of Maryland law,” Colafella said.

The situation is analogous to that faced by in West Virginia when it applied to build the 500-kilovolt line now under construction across northern West Virginia.

An analogous situation exists in West Virginia, where the commission has to confer status as public utilities on Allegheny Energy’s Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Co. and the Allegheny-AEP joint venture PATH in order to grant them Certificates of Convenience and Necessity to construct power lines.

While one of four Maryland commissioners dissented, three judged that their authority is not so broad.

About 20 miles of the 270-mile Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline, planned to stretch from the John Amos plant in St. Albans to West Virginia’s eastern panhandle and across Virginia, would run through Maryland, Colafella said.

“The Kemptown substation in Maryland is a critical piece of the PATH project,” he said. “It’s the terminus point of the PATH transmission line for a good reason: It’s the point in the transmission system where several key lines intersect, and PATH will reinforce the grid by tying in at that point.”

Allegheny and AEP will continue to pursue the line in Virginia and West Virginia, he said.

And he emphasized the commission’s note in its order that the decision “should not be read to foreshadow any views on the merits of the proposed transmission line project.”

“We’re looking at what options exist to successfully file an application for PATH in Maryland,” he said.

Just in, the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities has delayed the Evidentiary Hearings for PSE&G’s (and PJM’s!) Susquehanna-Roseland transmission line, from the week of October 19 to the week of November 16!

BPU Amended Scheduling Order 2009-09-11

Even better, the Discovery that was due right now is now not due for two more weeks! Two more weeks of figuring out how to torture those poor witnesses for PSE&G!!

For more info, see STOP THE LINES!

And that fits well with the CapX 2020 Brookings hearings, that were supposed to begin November 23 but now probably starting the week after.

Tomorrow is the Legislative Energy Commission on TRANSMISSION

TUESDAY, September 8, 2009
12:00 PM
Legislative Energy Commission
Room: Room 123 State Capitol
Chairs: Rep. Bill Hilty, Sen. Yvonne Prettner Solon
Agenda: Transmission

I’m dead last on the agenda… again… and hope it’s not another set up for another “Hilty Jilty.”

And we’re still in transit.  Sometimes it’s a long way between here:

and there:

Or there and here… whatever…

It’s a beautiful foggy morning in Coulee Country!

I’m representing Safe Wind in Freeborn County, and we’re working to increase the setbacks on the Bent Tree project to something that the neighbors can live with, participating in the PUC Certificate of Need and Siting dockets.

Last Thursday, Citizens Utility Board and Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group filed an appeal of the PSC’s Bent Tree decision.

CUB & WIEG Petition for Review and PSC-WI Bent Tree Decision

I’ve posted their pleadings on the Bent Tree dockets in Minnesota.  To review the Bent Tree dockets in Minnesota, go to www.puc.state.mn.us and then click “Search Dockets” and search for dockets 08-573 and/or 07-1425.

Here’s an article about the challenge from the WSJ (Wisconsin State Journal, that is):

More blowback: Suit challenges Alliant wind farm

By Thomas Content of the Journal Sentinel
Aug. 28, 2009

State regulators set a bad precedent for other energy projects when they gave the go-ahead to Alliant Energy Corp. to build a $497 million wind farm in Minnesota, two energy customer groups say.

The groups filed suit in Dane County Circuit Court on Friday to protest the vote by the state Public Service Commission to approve the project under a less rigorous review procedure than is typically required of major energy projects.

The Public Service Commission had used the less stringent review process because the project is an out-of-state project. The commission’s approval is needed for out-of-state project because the agency reviews whether a power plant is cost-effective for utility customers.

“Electric rates have been rapidly rising so we simply can’t afford less stringent regulatory review of new energy projects,” said Todd Stuart, executive director of Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group, in a statement. “The cost and need of energy infrastructure can’t be ignored, especially right now with the massive job losses in Wisconsin.”

Rob Crain, a spokesman for Alliant, said the legal challenge could likely mean delays for the project, which is slated to be operational by 2011, Crain said. The wind farm is needed for the utility to comply with the state’s renewable energy mandate that requires 10% of the state’s electricity to come from wind power and other renewable energy sources by 2015, he said.

“We are surprised and certainly disappointed that WIEG and CUB have chosen to make this filing. We view it as more process over substance,” Crain said.

The commission decided in November to move forward with reviewing the project under a less-stringent standard, a decision that was supported by Commissioners Eric Callisto and Mark Meyer but opposed by commissioner Lauren Azar.

“As far as we were concerned the issue was settled at that point in time,” Crain said.

Charlie Higley, executive director of the Citizens’ Utility Board, said the customer groups couldn’t legally file a legal challenge on the issue until after the commission’s final vote on the project in July. In this summer, the groups had warned  Alliant’s Madison subsidiary, Wisconsin Power & Light Co., that it was proceeding at its own risk by moving forward with the project under the less-strict review.

The groups are concerned about the precedent the commission’s decision could set for other types of energy projects that utilities could seek to build outside the state’s borders, such as a costly nuclear power plant or coal-fired power plant.

“The bottom line is risk for customers,” Higley said. “And the risk is that poorly designed or expensive projects could be approved and forced on to ratepayers who would then pay higher rates than they should be.”