Legalectric

Yes, Tom Micheletti and Excelsior Energy’s Mesaba Project had another rough time at the Public Utilities Commission yesterday.  The PUC was deciding on Excelsior’s Motions for Reconsideration in “Phase II” of the proceedings:

Excelsior’s Motion to Suspend, for Reconsideration etc etc etc

Staff Briefing Papers – 5-28-09

It was fast, the tone seemed to say that the PUC had had enough of it, and wanted to be done.  Deny, deny, deny, the end.

So, now what?  I don’t know, because Charlotte Neigh, of Citizens Against the Mesaba Project, had inquired with Richard Hargis, of the DOE, as to the status of the EIS in the siting docket, scheduled to be released in June (yeah, right, as if…).  He said:

Ms. Neigh,

I don’t think this affects the issuance of the FEIS.

Richard Hargis

Huh… so now what?  Haven’t a clue.  My client, mncalgasplant.com, was an intervenor in this case, beginning nearly five years ago.  Will this thing end some time in my lifetime?  I’m starting to wonder…

Fredon School

Dig this:

“Visual simulation” of what towers will look like compared with present strutures

The Susquehanna-Roseland transmission line through Pennsylvania and New Jersey is getting a little hairier, YEAAAAA.  Fredon PALS, a group centered around the Fredon School, which is facing transmission lines over its property(school, above), sent their first Discovery over the bow today.  It’s good stuff, I love it when this happens.

Fredon PALS – First Set of Discovery Requests to PSE&G

Until now, we’d been the only Intervenors who’d sent PSE&G any Discovery, Stop the Lines, that is, and with this filing today, Welcome to the Club, Fredon PALS!!!

Here we go again!

Once more with feeling, Xcel’s Chisago transmission project rears its ugly head.  This time, Xcel, f/k/a NSP, has violated the terms of the agreement between itself and the cities of Taylors Falls and St. Croix Falls.  It centers on the location of the end of the undergrounding near the St. Croix River.  Xcel is coming up quite a bit sooner than their specific agreement says they would, and Taylors Falls is not happy.  St. Croix Falls has joined in on their objection.  They’ve been going back and forth about this for a while, and now Taylors Falls has asked the PUC to amend the permit.

Notice of Permit Amendment Request & Comment Period

Taylors Falls & St Croix Falls Permit Amendment Request

And they’re soliciting Public Comments!  From the Notice:

The permit amendment request is scheduled to be heard at the Commission’s June 11, 2009, Agenda Meeting. The Commission is providing until June 02, 2009, for interested persons to comment on the issue. Please submit comments to be received before 4:30 p.m. on that date to:

David Birkholz, Project Manager
Office of Energy Security
85 7th Place E, Suite 500
St. Paul, MN 55101-2198

or by email:  <David.Birkholz@state.mn.us>

Attached to the Notice are the rules regarding amendments, and notice is to be provided to the project list.  I haven’t received it.  Hmmmmmmm… and I’ve even been to the P.O. Box lately!

Something else — on April 14, 2009, Burl Haar at the PUC signed a letter saying that Xcel had filed their Plan and they were in compliance with the permit.  That’s April 14, and attached is a memo from David Birkholz, MOES staff, dated April 10, 2009.

It looks to me like they weren’t reading my blog dated April 4, 2009:

Xcel — Undergrounding in Taylors Falls

“In compliance” my fat ass…

This was an issue in March, with correspondence dating from mid-March, and we know there was a lot of fighting going on before that.  So the MOES memo says they’re in compliance with the permit…

Hello – the agreement?  That was Exhibit 218, entered by moi into the record, offered and accepted in Transcript Vol. 1B, pages 82-83.

Deal – NSP – Taylors Falls – St. Croix Falls

This bru-ha-ha was brewing before Xcel submitted its “compliance filing,” and before Birkholz and Harr signed the “go ahead” approval.  So either David Birkholz, MOES and Burl Haar, PUC are sleeping at the switch, or Xcel made a material omission in its filings, or more likely, BOTH!  But hey, what’s an agreement between the state’s largest utility and two Minnesota cities?

Yes, that’s the Prairie Island plant back behind Ken’s rump!

Comments are due on the big picture for the Prairie Island power uprate and siting of more dry casks. yes, the notice says today:

Public Meeting Notice & Comment Deadline

And it says:

Deadline for written public comments to the Administrative Law Judge on the Certificate of Need (CON) and Site Permit applications must be received by May 25, 2009.

And here’s what the hearing and what comments should address:

Purpose of Hearing. The purpose of the public hearing is to compile the record for the Commission to consider in making a final decision on the CON and the Site Permit requests. The ALJ will write a report and make a recommendation to the Commission on (1) the need for the extended power uprate (EPU) project, (2) the need for the Additional Dry Cask Storage project, and (3) on site selection, including any appropriate site permit conditions. The Commission will make a final decision on the need and site permit at a subsequent Commission hearing. The Commission must issue a Certificate of Need prior to issuing a Site Permit.

PJM, Delmarva Power, PEPCO, PHI, whatever, admit that demand is down and that the Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway, the transmission line through Maryland and Delaware to New Jersey, should be delayed

The Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway, or MAPP, is part of PJM’s “Project Mountaineer,” a web of lines expressly designed to move coal generation from the Amos plant in West Virginia and gather other coal and nuclear generation and send it in a northeasterly direction:

See the MAPP line there in the NE section of Project Mountaineer line 4?

PJM has recommended delay of the inservice date for a portion of the MAPP line by a year, the portion from Indian River to Salem nuclear plant.  What remains, however, is a problem, because electrically, it makes no sense to build a 500kV radial line to nowhere.  If part of the line should be delayed, the ENTIRE line should be delayed.

Here’s the corporate Press Release and two “articles” which should be compared!

Press Release from Delmarva site

MAPP: Controversial High Voltage Electric Transmission Line Delayed for One Year

PJM Reinforces MAPP Need: Adds Year to Schedule (states “contributed by Delmarva Power”)

This demonstration of lack of need is something that should be raised in the Delmarva Power IRP docket, that demand is down so significantly that PJM thinks infrastructure construction should be delayed.  And yes, PJM demand is way, way down.

PJM Annual Report Link

So, since demand is so far down, this is a good time to let the PSC know, in the Delmarva Power IRP docket, that we know that demand is down, so far down that they can’t cover anymore and they have to postpone some of their infrastructure construction.  The Hearing Officer is taking public comments on the Delmarva Power IRP until some time in July, I think the 25th.

Send IRP Public Comments to the Hearing Eximaner Ruth Price:

ruth.price@state.de.us

What’s an IRP Comment?  The Integrated Resource Planning process is supposed to be the way a utility plans ahead to cover their demand, and it’s essentially the intersection of energy policy and those #(%&*)#*( utilities.  This is the arena where it’s determined whether they should meet their demand through conservation (the cheapest and environmentally the smallest footprint), efficiency steps like load shifting and SmartGrid,  offshore wind paired with natural gas for backup, and whether external costs of various generation options are taken into account.  SOOOOO, does that give you an idea of what’s up?

See Delmarva Power’s IRP docket at the PSC, scroll down beyond that rulemaking on the top:

PSC’s Delmarva IRP page

And note this sly trick — they couldn’t get their IRP right from last cycle and were told by PSC staff to take it home and try again, and the last revision of that last IRP is the one they submitted:

December 1, 2008 IRP (from last cycle)

And they said in their accompanying letter that this one should be for THIS cycle!   AAAAAAARGH!

So, it’s time to review this joke of an IRP, take a look at PJM load forecasting, look at PJM and PEPCO SEC filings like their 2008 10-K and 2009 1st Quarter 10-Q:

PJM 2008 Load and Forecast Report

Dig up some good conservation reports and sent them in as examples of what can be done.  Let them know that with PJM demand down, we expect some changes, that this is a good opportunity to take a sustainable fork in the road, when demand is down we can make conscious choices.

Once more with feeling, check out the Delmarva Power IRP and send comments to ruth.price@state.de.us.