Legalectric

Nope, Xcel’s line is NOT Volkommen in Lindstrom! The ALJ decision in the Chisago Transmission Project came out late yesterday, and the ALJ did find that Xcel “needed” the line, and that it should NOT go through downtown Lindstrom, but instead should go to the north, around downtown Lindstrom, by going up around the lake and then rejoin the existing corridor. That answers some of the city’s concern, the major concern of the unworkable mix of that transmission line and the city’s plans for upgrade of Highway 8. The DOT’s Todd Clarkowski presented detailed information about the plans and impacts, plans that have been many years in the making. That, and his 12+ foot color plan, made the case! Amazing what a little subpoena can do.

Hot off the press, here’s the Recommendation:

Chisago – ALJ Findings, Conclusions & Recommendation

The ALJ did a great job setting out the Department of Commerce’s power grab and attempted power take that did not sit well, and all we have to do now is get an engineer on Commerce staff — one would think that’d be regarded as a necessity, but we’re just not there yet.

Is this any place to build a power plant?  The Matanuska-Susitna Borough Assembly says NO!  And it’s based on economic reasons, the IPPs that they’dapproached about building the plant were “non-responsive.”  Sounds dead to me!

MEA to shelve coal plan for at least five years
ALTERNATIVES: Costs, critics pushed utility to look at options.

By RINDI WHITE
rwhite@adn.com

(Published: November 10, 2007)

WASILLA — Matanuska Electric Association is shelving plans to build a coal-fired power plant south of Palmer, citing “anti-local-power sentiments” held by local elected officials and a spike in costs related to building coal-fired plants.

A law passed by the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Assembly in August that regulates new power plants, as well as demand for coal-generated power in China and other less-strictly regulated countries are to blame, according to MEA general manager Wayne Carmony.

“Until problems with the borough’s ordinance can be addressed and recent spikes in world coal plant prices stabilize, it is imprudent to proceed with construction of the coal portion” of the Integrated Resource Plan adopted by MEA earlier this year, Carmony wrote by e-mail Friday to the MEA board of directors.

The plan details how the Palmer-based electric cooperative would build two, 100-megawatt power plants, one fired by coal for base power and another by natural gas for peak demand.

Carmony in his e-mail said he would ask the board in December to delay building the coal-fired plant for at least five years. He would also present alternatives to building a coal plant.

That’s great news, said Jim Sykes, leader of MEA watchdog group UtilityWatch.

“If they set it aside for five years, it’s dead. The economics of a coal plant are not going to get better in five years,” Sykes said. “That was the first thing they needed to realize, that their proposal for a coal plant was a dog.”

MEA board member David Dahms called Friday “a sad day for science and economics.”

He blamed Friends of Mat-Su, a local pro-planning group, and The Sierra Club for organizing opposition in April to the coal-fired plant. Without that plant to provide electricity, consumer costs will rise as the supply of natural gas in Cook Inlet dwindles, Dahms said.

“I would suggest that every member of our co-op send their electrical bills to Friends of Mat-Su and Sierra Club in 10 years when they can’t afford to pay their electric bills,” Dahms said.

MEA spokeswoman Lorali Carter said the international market for coal power was part of the MEA decision to drop its coal plans for now.

Independent power producers, with whom MEA discussed plans to build and operate the two new plants, were “non-responsive,” Carter said. She said confidentiality agreements prevent her from identifying the power producers MEA spoke with.

“If they can go to China and build a 1,000-megawatt coal plant, the economies of scale are far greater than building that plant here,” Carter said.

Another proposed IGCC plant down in flames. The Wiscasset Maine voters said a loud NO!!! to “Question 2” that would have given the coal gasification a variance for a higher stack. There were three other issues on the ballot that would have helped the plant, and those were voted down too. How many IGCC plants are down the toilet now?

Here are two stories, this first one from the Boston Globe:

Wiscasset voters close door on $1.5 billion coal gasification

November 6, 2007

WISCASSET, Maine –Wiscasset voters have rejected ballot questions necessary for a $1.5 billion coal gasification plant on the site of the former Maine Yankee plant.

Town Clerk Sandra Johnson says the pivotal vote was 868-707 against Question 2, which would have allowed the Twin River Energy Center to exceed the zone’s height limit.

Twin River isn’t throwing in the towel, however. A spokesman says further studies are warranted because the vote was so close.

Supporters say the proposed Twin River Energy Center would use gasification technology to transform coal and wood biomass into up to 700 megawatts of electricity and up to 9,000 barrels per day of diesel fuel.

==================================

This one from the Portland Press Herald:

Wiscasset turns down energy project
Election 2007: The developer of the proposed plant calls the vote
‘close’ and plans to soldier on.

==================================

And another, from the Times Record News:

Energy Plant Zoning Rejected

 

Bob_Kalish@TimesRecord.Com

 

11/07/2007
WISCASSET — The canary in Twin River Energy’s coal mine stopped chirping Tuesday night, but rumors of its demise might be premature, developers say.

Almost half the registered voters here went to the polls Tuesday to defeat zoning ordinance changes that would have paved the way for construction of Twin River’s proposed coal gasification plant on land formerly owned by Maine Yankee Atomic Power Plant. Despite that rebuke by residents of the town that would be home to the plant, Twin River Energy officials say they haven’t given up completely.

The vote on Question 2, which changed the limits on building heights, was defeated by a 161-vote margin — 707 “yes” votes to 868 “no” votes.

The vote represents a victory for the opponents of the proposed plant, which included the Conservation Law Foundation, the Back River Alliance, the Natural Resources Council of Maine, the Lower Kennebec River Land Trust and state Rep. Bruce MacDonald, D-Boothbay, who has submitted a bill that would prevent construction of any new coal power plant that does not capture 90 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions.

Woolwich resident Willy Ritch, spokesman for the Back River Alliance, said Tuesday night that his group worked hard to defeat the proposal because it wasn’t right for the area.

“This proposal is wrong for Wiscasset, wrong for the Mid-coast and it’s wrong for Maine,” he said. “It has become clear over the past few months that there is a tremendous amount of opposition to this proposal, not just in this area but all over the state.”

Steve Hinchman, of the Conservation Law Foundation, said the key issue for his group was the lack of regulations and the threat to Maine’s attempt to control its carbon dioxide emissions, which experts believe contribute to global climate change.

“Until we require developers to control their carbon dioxide emissions, we will continue to see ill-conceived projects like Twin River,” Hinchman said. “Our future is with energy efficiency and renewable energy sources like wind, not coal.”

Opposition to the plant coalesced quickly after the proposal was dropped in the laps of selectmen in July. Issues raised by opponents included anticipated traffic problems caused by the daily delivery of 7,000 tons of coal — by barge and/or rail — and the increase in carbon dioxide emissions.

Despite the defeat, Scott Houldin, project director of Twin River Energy Center, said his group was not totally giving up its efforts.

“Considering how close the vote was,” Houldin said in a prepared statement, “it is obvious that Wiscasset residents want the economic development opportunity, but need to learn more about the details before giving the green light.”

To achieve that, Houldin said he would commission “several important studies” focusing on final determination of water sources and details of barge or rail transportation.

Hinchman didn’t see the need for further studies.

“This wasn’t a matter of the residents not knowing enough,” he said this morning. “It’s a matter of credibility. We saw through this from the start. Given the recent 10th cancellation of a similar plant in Colorado, it’s obvious the economics don’t match up.”

The zoning ordinances on the ballot would have allowed an extension of the building height limit on the specific site of the proposed plant, but the permitting process itself would have taken two years, according to Houldin.

The proposed plant would have brought more than 200 high-paying jobs to the area and contributed up to 80 percent of the town’s property tax, according to Houldin. But opponents contended those benefits would have come at too high a price.

 

The DOE and the Department of Commerce have finally released the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Excelsior Energy’s Mesaba Project. Here’s the link:

DRAFT EIS – MESABA PROJECT IGCC

I’ll be uploading the pieces of it for posterity, sitting on my posterior… it’ll take a while, but here’s a start:

Mesaba DEIS – Contents

Mesaba DEIS – Summary

Mesaba DIES – Chapter 1

Mesaba DEIS – Chapter 2

Chapter 3 is just too big!

Mesaba DEIS – Chapter 4

Mesaba DEIS – Chapter 5

Mesaba DEIS – Appendix A

Mesaba DEIS – Appendix B

Mesaba DEIS – Appendix C

Appendix D is just too big!

Mesaba DEIS – Appendix E

Appendix F is just too big!

Mesaba DEIS – Appendix G

Mesaba DEIS – Appendix H

This ought to keep you going at least long enough for me to get the big ones broken down and posted! Happy reading.
Remember this on of “the boys” deer hunting on the Mesaba site? It’s that time of year again… and look at all that infrastructure!

It’s been too long since I’ve posted anything.  Computer and hardware problems made it too easy to take a “time out” and now the computer is back from Lenovo, but got stuck with Vista again, they wouldn’t put XP on it.  So now we’re trying to work that out.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR! 

Anyway, here’s the ALJ’s Final Report on MCGP’s complaint of ex parte contact on the part of Excelsior Energy:

ALJ Lipman’s Final Report – MCGP Ex Parte Complaint

Like I said,

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!