Legalectric

Shame, shame, shame, Xcel…

Remember way back when, Chisago II, when then Northern States Power did a deal with the City of Taylors Falls and the City of St. Croix Falls?  I won’t forget the cities’ joint siging meeting, because the then Mayor of St. Croix Falls, now a felon, ordered me arrested when I inquired during public comment period about the “Project Mitigation Fund and Committee.”  Guess he didn’t want that discussed, didn’t want it questioned… thanks to all the hollering from the audience I didn’t end up with three hots and a cot!

Deal – NSP – Taylors Falls – St. Croix Falls

This was a three way deal.  Well, Xcel has just unilaterally, without permission of Taylors Falls and St. Croix Falls, altered provisions of the construction specifics that were material terms of the agreement.

From the agreement:

See???  Undergrounding “to the existing dam facility on the St. Croix River…”

Simple enough… but here’s what it says in the PUC Order of February 20, 2008:

… and..

.

So in the agreement, it is undergrounded all the way to the river, and in the PUC Order, it’s above ground from Hwy. 95 to the river on H-frame structures.  EH?  Well, what does that look like?  Here’s the map:

Off to the right, the wider road where there’s a box pointing downward at the wider road where it says “UG Termination Structures” and the line representing transmission changes to sort of a weird dashed line just after the road, that’s Hwy 95 where just east of the highway, it changes from underground to overhead.  If you follow it from Hwy. 95 to the right, east, you’ll see it go over County Road 16, Wild Mountain Road and then over to the St. Croix River.

What does Taylors Falls think about it?  They’re unhappy enough to have rattled Xcel’s cage, and got this response from Xcel:

Xcel’s letter to Mayor Buchite – March 26, 2009

Xcel’s explanation why transmission line was overhead when it was supposed to be underground is… well… read it for yourself:

Oh, right, Xcel, because you got everyone together EXCEPT those who are party to the agreement and they agreed, yeah, seems like it’s OK… uh-huh…

I think a better response: “THAT’S DIFFERENT!”

Should the settlement agreement be amended?  Xcel has this to say:

Xcel says there’s no need to amend the settlement agreement and that they’ve “complied with all of the provisions relative to Taylors Falls.”  Oh… uh-huh…

St. Croix Falls, the other party to the agreement, is outraged!  They took it to Congressman Obey:

St. Croix Falls letter to Rep. Obey – March 31, 2009

Can you hear their eyeballs rolling, hands thrown up in disgust?

And what’s this about the school in St. Croix Falls?????

Xcel is getting a little too big for its britches!

From the folks who brought you CapX 2020, today we get even more…

Here’s a link over to my other site — I’ll post a map and more tomorrow, but for now, go over to www.nocapx2020.info

CLICK HERE: ALL ABOUT THE NEW TRANSMISSION PLAN FROM HELL

How dare they… and on the eve of the CapX 2020 Certificate of Need oral argument and deliberation, whatever are they thinking… I do not understand

TRANSMISSION INTERRUPTUS

The New York Regional Interconnect has been withdrawn… withdrawn in the middle of cross-examination… like WOW!

This from a missive from Troy Bystrom, Project Manager for Communities Against Regional Interconnect (CARI) just a bit ago:

WE WON!!!  NYRI PROJECT WITHDRAWS APPLICATION!!!

Today following a mid-day break in the Article VII certification proceeding, NYRI announced it will withdraw its application from consideration by the Public Service Commission.  Counsel for NYRI explained that in the wake of a decision by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission earlier this week, NYRI’s investors decided to end their pursuit of an Article VII Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need. Earlier this week, FERC denied NYRI’s request for rehearing in a proceeding relating to the recovery of transmission system upgrade costs.

The announcement that NYRI is withdrawing its application occurred in the midst of cross examination of NYRI Witnesses and immediately following CARI’s cross examination on demand side management and economics.

The presiding officers asked NYRI to confirm in writing their withdrawal no later than Monday, April 6, 2009.  The Judges also made clear that if NYRI were to seek approval for a similar project in the future, NYRI would be required to once again start at the beginning of the Article VII process.

Communities Against Regional Interconnect, on behalf of the counties of Sullivan, Orange, Delaware, Broome, Chenango, Madison, Oneida, Herkimer, Otsego and the Upper Delaware Council, Stop NYRI, Upper Delaware Preservation Coalition, Say No to NYRI and the Upstate New York Citizens’ Alliance, would like to thank all of those who participated in opposing this ill-conceived Power Line Project in our region.

Thank you to everyone who sent donations, wrote letters, provided testimony, attended public meetings, County planning departments, communities, legal experts, the Attorney General’s Office, DEC, Department of Public Service, consultants, media, organizations, activists, local, state and federal elected officials who all participated in this unprecedented regional effort.

Together, we made a difference. However, the work is not over! We must secure intervener funding to protect the public interest if similar projects are proposed in the future and make sure the 4th District Court’s decision regarding FERC’s authority is not overturned!

And from Scott Olson, of Susquahanna-Roseland “Route B” fame, here’s a collection of today’s news flashes about it:

* APRIL 3, 2009, 4:21 P.M. ET

NY Regional Interconnect Suspends 190-Mile Transmission Project

-By Ian Talley, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-9285; ian.talley@dowjones.com

New York Regional Interconnect, or NYRI, said Friday that it is suspending its participation in a 190-mile transmission project because it was denied a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hearing request for 13.5% return on equity, the firm said in a press release.

The company said in a statement that FERC’s decision earlier this week to deny a rehearing on the request “would pose an uncertain financial risk for this or any other private investment in infrastructure in New York State.”

The company said FERC’s decision was made at the urging of the New York Independent System Operator, or NYISO, which NYRI said protested the transmission project. NYRI said several of its potential competitors sit on the independent system operators board of directors.

“FERC’s March 31 ruling essentially admits that the process may be biased, but it chose not to intervene,” the company said in a statement.

Officials from FERC and NYISO weren’t immediately able to comment.

… and on the scene, from the Pike County Courier:

NYRI calls it quits — the flying horse is dead

Power line application withdrawal hailed by river council

NARROWSBURG, N.Y. — The Upper Delaware Council (UDC) is hailing the Apr. 3 decision by New York Regional Interconnect, Inc. (NYRI) to withdraw its application to construct a high-voltage, direct-current transmission line on a 190-mile path through eight New York State counties between Marcy and Rock Tavern, N.Y.

The decision would end a controversy that has been argued since Canadian developers aired the proposal in 2003. Then called Pegasus, after the mythical winged horse, it originally planned a construction corridor through the federally protected Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River. The route then would have run along railway right-of-way in Lackawaxen, Shohola and Westfall townships.

The proposal drew immediate opposition locally, which grew as the proposal made its way through planning and approval processes. In press interviews at the time, project sponsors scoffed at idea of local opposition derailing the project.

NYRI counsel verbally withdrew their Article VII application for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need mid-day through the 15th day of evidentiary hearings before the New York State Public Service Commission (PSC) in Albany.

The UDC participated actively with the Communities Against Regional Interconnect (CARI) coalition of county governments and non-profit organizations since its inception, utilized the resources of a $50,000 state grant secured by Senator John J. Bonacic in 2006 to study and review the impacts of NYRI on the river valley, and vigilantly monitored all NYRI proceedings on a daily basis.

“This has been a long and exhausting fight since NYRI filed its original (formal) application on May 31, 2006, but the UDC has been steadfast in its position that this proposed power line did not belong in the Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River corridor,” said UDC Executive Director William E. Douglass.

The surprising withdrawal action followed a March 31 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) ruling that denied NYRI’s request for a re-hearing on the question of cost allocation voting procedures by the New York Independent System Operator.

NYRI Attorney Len Singer advised PSC Administrative Law Judges Jeffrey Stockholm and Michelle Phillips on Friday that the private company’s investors felt that the order jeopardized NYRI’s ability to recover the costs of transmissions upgrades, thereby creating too great of a financial risk.

NYRI was instructed to submit a letter of Article VII withdrawal notification by Monday, April 6, to the PSC Secretary, with copies to all of the Interested Parties in this case. NYRI must also make clear in that correspondence whether they intend to re-apply to the PSC or seek certification from FERC for this project at a future date.

If no objections are raised to NYRI’s decision by Monday, April 13, the case will be officially closed.

The NYRI application proposed to site mostly 10-story-tall overhead transmission towers between converter stations in Oneida and Orange Counties on a nominated route that largely paralleled the Millennium Gas Pipeline in this region from Deposit to Cuddebackville. That represented the second generation of a proposal made in October 2003 by NYRI predecessor, the Canadian firm Pegasus Power Systems, Inc., to transport upstate electricity to metropolitan markets downstate. Pegasus proposed to use the railroad rights-of-way alongside the Upper Delaware River for its route.

The River Management Plan for the Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River (1986) states that new, major electric lines are an “incompatible use” and present a “clear and direct threat” to the river corridor.

In addition to believing that NYRI would have violated the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the council was concerned about the company’s potential use of eminent domain to acquire private property for this line, its impacts on the local environment, loss of property values, and detrimental effects on tourism.

Working in partnership with the National Park Service since 1988, the UDC is the non-profit organization responsible for coordinated implementation of the River Management Plan. For more information, call 845-252-3022, or visit www.upperdelawarecouncil.org.

Susquehanna-Roseland is but a small part of a much bigger plan:

For more information on the Ssuquehanna-Roseland transmission line, see:

STOP THE LINES

The National Park Service seems to be taking a rational approach — a thorough review of impacts on public lands:

National Park Service plans power line study

By BRUCE A. SCRUTON

bscruton@njherald.com

The National Park Service wants a full environmental impact study done on how construction of new 500-kilovolt electric transmission lines will affect the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, the river itself and the Appalachian Trail, a designated national heritage trail.

Just more than four miles of the proposed route crosses through the recreation area on its way from Susquehanna, Pa., to Roseland in Essex County. The Pennsylvania section is being proposed by PPL and the New Jersey section would be built and owned by Public Service Electric & Gas, the state’s largest power utility.

The National Park Service had the option to cede oversight to the utility-regulating agencies of the two states, but announced that “the NPS will adhere to its own regulatory and approval process” regarding the lines.

The proposed route follows an existing right-of-way which contains 230-kilovolt lines which were built in the late 1920s and pre-dates the recreation area. But when the federal government purchased the properties, it also became the party to the rights-of-way. In addition, to construct the new towers, the utilities will need additional, temporary rights-of-way.

Construction over environmentally sensitive areas along other parts of the route has given rise to much of the public opposition to the project.
Read the rest of this entry »

THE MESABA PROJECT IS DEAD, DEAD, DEAD!  Coal gasification is not happening.  IGCC ist zu ende!  How many silver stakes through its slimy heart will it take?

Once more with feeling:

IGCC is TOO EXPENSIVE!

IGCC doesn’t provide any significant environmental benefit!

IGCC is not in the public interest!

This is from Charlotte Neigh, Co-Chair of Citizens Against the Mesaba Project, who, having reviewed the recent spin-doctoring of Excelsior Energy, and their tentacle-reach toward Minnesota Municipal Utilities — they’re trying to make it look like they’ve got something they haven’t got:

It is not correct to say that the federal government would back 73 percent of the total cost, or that the federal government has “pledged” $800 million in loan guarantees, or that municipal utilities would have to raise only 27 percent of the project costs to secure ownership of Unit 1 of the Mesaba Project.

Excelsior Energy has not yet been awarded any loan guarantees. It is one of eleven final applicants to share in a pool of $4 billion. Excelsior admits that its negotiations with DOE will continue throughout 2009. DOE stated in October 2007 that projects relying upon a smaller guarantee percentage will be given greater weight. Despite this statement, Excelsior repeatedly misled the media and even the PUC about the status of the loan guarantees, suggesting that they would cover 80 percent of the project costs.

Apparently Excelsior is now seeking 73 percent but this is a long way from becoming reality. A key requirement for qualifying is to have an assurance of revenues to be generated from sale of the product. This means a long-term commitment from a customer to purchase the energy. This is why the failure to achieve a PPA with Xcel Energy is critical. Other obstacles are DOE requirements for: credit assessment without a loan guarantee; approval of environmental and other permits; reduced greenhouse gases; and relative amount of cash contributed by the principals.

Now Excelsior is trying to entice municipal utilities into purchasing ownership interests by suggesting that 100 percent ownership can be obtained by raising 27 percent of the costs. Municipal utilities should carefully assess the likelihood that this amount or any loan guarantees at all will be awarded for the Mesaba Project before issuing bonds to finance such a purchase.

More information and analysis about the federal loan guarantees can be found by scrolling down to the October 8, 2007 entry on the CAMP website: www.camp-site.info/

Charlotte Neigh, Co-Chair
Citizens Against the Mesaba Project

Here’s an example of the bogus spin, from Business North — note she can’t even get the announcement time-frame right… Excelsior announced Mesaba in December, 2001, that’s EIGHT years ago:

No customer for controversial energy project

Excelsior Energy targets municipal PUCs in search for a buyer as key May 1 deadline looms.

4/1/2009
by Beth Bily

About six years ago in the wake of the permanent closing of LTV Steel Mining in Hoyt Lakes, momentum began to develop behind a project concept, one since celebrated and renounced.

That proposed Mesaba Energy project with a price estimated at $2 billion has moved through various phases of public review to a potentially new location further west. Along the way it has become one of the most vigorously debated economic development initiatives proposed for Minnesota’s Iron Range.

Meanwhile, an important deadline looms that could make or break the project. The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission had ordered talks between Mesaba’s parent, Excelsior Energy, and power giant, Twin Cities-based Xcel Energy. The two sides were directed to negotiate a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) for the approximate 600 megawatts of electricity Mesaba’s proposed Unit One would produce. That ordered negotiation period ends on May 1 and there is no evidence an agreement will be reached.

Read the rest of this entry »