Legalectric

Environmentalists expressed guarded optimism at the recommendation, which now goes to the commissioners for a vote.

“On the face of it, it seems like a sound recommendation,” said Alan Muller, executive director of Green Delaware, who cautioned that the wind project might not be economical if made smaller from the original proposal. “I think it’s a valuable step forward.”

Yes, in Delaware, IGCC coal gasification going down in flames! I just got the call moments ago, and am SO tickled. Delaware’s PSC staff gets it!
In Delaware’s RFP they have three “choices,” IGCC, gas and wind. So what does PSC staff do? They pick one from column B and one from column C, the wind/gas combo!

Delaware PSC staff – wind/gas combo!

Now what are the odds the PSC will do what staff recommends?

Here’s the full RFP docket

Here’s mncoalgasplant.com’s RFP Comments

… and mncoalgasplant.com’s RFP Exhibits

I am SOOOOOO tickled… hopeful even…

Here’s the entire News Tribune article:

PSC staff backs smaller wind farm, natural gas backup

By AARON NATHANS, The News Journal
Updated Wednesday, May 2, 2007 at 7:44 pm

Wind power generated off the Delaware coast took a step closer to a reality today.

A Public Service Commission staff report recommended building an offshore wind park, as well as a natural gas plant in Sussex County to back it up. The PSC released the report late this afternoon.

The wind park would be half the size of the development envisioned by Bluewater Wind, the New Jersey-based company behind the plans to build the wind farm. Bluewater had originally proposed a 600 mw facility; the report suggests the PSC instead approve a 200-300 mw facility.

Environmentalists expressed guarded optimism at the recommendation, which now goes to the commissioners for a vote.

“On the face of it, it seems like a sound recommendation,” said Alan Muller, executive director of Green Delaware, who cautioned that the wind project might not be economical if made smaller from the original proposal. “I think it’s a valuable step forward.”

Instead of building at the Hay Road facility as Conectiv proposed, the report recommended building its natural gas plant in Sussex County, at a site to be determined.

“Although Staff’s recommendation is not the least expensive solution, it is a complementary energy arrangement that will help to mitigate global warming and reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Taken together, these projects, when appropriately managed, should have a positive impact on price stability,” the report read.

“This is a great day for Delaware,” said Jim Lanard, spokesman for Bluewater Wind, who cautioned that the proposal needed the approval of the commission itself, as well as three other state agencies.

Bluewater still hopes to build the larger wind park, and would attempt to convince Delmarva to accept more electricity, Lanard said. If it fails, Bluewater could seek other customers to accept the electricity Delmarva does not want, he said.

There was not yet word from Conectiv about whether it would be willing to build the recommended facility.

The recommendation comes after seven months of deliberations, and a series of public meetings in which speakers overwhelmingly backed the wind farm proposal.

The commission is expected to vote on whether to accept one or more of the bids at its meeting on Tuesday in Dover. The five commissioners are free to accept the staff recommendations or ignore them.

Bids went out last year after the Legislature asked the commission, and three other state agencies, to seek a home-grown source of electricity, with the intent of stabilizing and bringing down the price of electricity. That’s after deregulation, and the removal of rate caps one year ago, led to a 59 percent average rate increase for Delmarva Power residential customers.

Contact Aaron Nathans at 324-2786 or anathans@delawareonline.com.

In today’s STrib, a letter from my clients, neighbors to the proposed Kenyon Wind project:

MANDATING RENEWABLES

Price of wind energy

Legislation to develop renewable energy needs introspection. History shows when there’s a rush to implement new policy, unintended consequences prevail.

Such is the case with wind energy. People assume wind energy is “free” — no pollution, no greenhouse gases, no downside — but there’s more to consider.

Wind turbines have typically been installed in remote areas with sparse population. The legislative mandate has developers feeling they’ve been given “carte blanche,” but wind generators must be sited responsibly.

Utility-grade wind turbines are taller than the Foshay Tower, more than 400 feet to blade peak, with spinning rotors weighing 30 tons. Kenyon Wind proposes to site turbines within just 800 feet of residences of people not invested in the project, which is too close given safety and noise concerns. Turbines are annoying, noisy neighbors, and they generate not just electricity but “flicker” by casting shadows during daylight hours.

Like any “good” idea, there are consequences. Wind turbines on sparsely populated southwest Minnesota prairie are one thing — siting them among close residences here in southeast Minnesota is another.

MIKE CHASE, KENYON, MINN.
PRESIDENT, CITIZENS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS AND SAFETY

Time to haul out the big honkin’ gavel again…

I am not making this up — from the “FOURTH PREHEARING ORDER” in the Mesaba Project siting docket:

Unless excused by an Administrative Law Judge, failure of a party to file testimony when due shall result in that party being denied further participation as a party in this matter.

FOURTH PREHEARING ORDER

Ironic given that just last week, there was the backpedalling Chisago ALJ Order that said:

The fact is that our system of due process delights in the contributions that genuinely motivated parties make toward building a record for later decision-making.

Uh-huh… right… except when, as Xcel’s Chris Clark said, “We didn’t have anything to say!” Thankfully, my clients aren’t the only ones who haven’t submitted testimony. We’re in good company – there’s Xcel, Minnesota Power, so far, Excelsior is the only party to submit testimony, and that makes sense because THEY have the burden of proof in this. Intervenors are under no obligation to submit testimony, and if they “didn’t have anything to say” or if they’re cash strapped and will build the record on cross-examination, that’s just ducky.

So, show me the authority for an order like this!!!

hy are we sitting back? The ALJs’ recommendation has come down in the PPA side of things, with the ALJs recommending that Excelsior’s Petition be denied. As we wait for the Public Utilities Commission to take it up, the siting side of this is sitting… languishing… a good thing:

Commerce Siting Docket Site

For PUC Siting docket site, go to www.puc.state.mn.us and then to “eDockets” and then to “Search Documents” and then search for docket “06” and “668.”

Intervenors in a docket may participate to the extent that the choose. They can wage and active and fierce intervention or they can collect the mail as biomass, their choice. They can passively proceed with thumbs up various orifices or flood the other side with frantic information requests. It’s OUR choice. It’s not for the ALJ to limit. So here we go again, off to the races.

And of course I’m remembering the Hearing Examiner gavelling and yelling at Alan when he had the nerve to ask for the authority for ordering that he and the other Intervenors could not speak at a public hearing! I’m remembering the ALJ’s Order that CRVC explain just exactly why their representing themselves was not unauthorized practice of law (Here’s another post on that). And I’m remembering David Ludwig of the PSC essentially saying the same thing to me when I was representing a client before the PSC! How dare they try to quash the public! I expect this from the project proponents, but from state agencies? The arm of the governor???

Unless excused by an Administrative Law Judge, failure of a party to file testimony when due shall result in that party being denied further participation as a party in this matter.

Plus they’ve not added Charlotte, Ed, Ron and Linda, and Ross to the service list… so they didn’t know about this outrageous Order.

OK, fine, whatever, well, at least Xcel and Minnesota Power know about this and I trust they’re shaking their heads in amazement too…

.

Transmission lines may be coming your way, through federal pre-emption of state processes that give transmission lines the scrutiny they require. They’re working to transfer jurisdiction of transmission siting out of the hands of the states and into the hands of FERC, we’ve been hearing about this for a while, they’ve got the authority to do it, and now there are specific transmission corridors proposed. Well, as specific as you can get with a 100-200 mile wide corridor!

Is this what you want? Do you want the feds to have power of eminent domain to give utilities what they want — YOUR LAND? Do you want these National Transmission Corridors through your yard? Do you want them to get away with characterizing transmission of market transactions, bulk power transfer, as necessary for “national security?”

NATIONAL ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION CORRIDORS WERE ANNOUNCED LAST WEEK. NOW’S THE TIME TO REGISTER YOUR COMMENTS!

HERE’S THEIR MAIN SITE

How to Submit Comments – details CLICK HERE

“Public Comment Form” HERE

Public Comment Period is 60 days, beginning on April 26, 2006, and ending on (I think) June 25, 2007 (depending on how they count!). They claim that comments received or postmarked within the 60-day comment period will be considered, but I recommend making sure it GETS THERE by the deadline, I hate to rely on their statement about postmarks!

They have the above Public Comment Form on their site, and if you use this, I’d recommend printing it out so you have a record of it.

They ask that you specify the docket you’re Commenting on, i.e., Docket No. 2007-OE-01 (the draft Mid-Atlantic Area National Corridor), comments must be marked “Attn: Docket No. 2007-OE-01” and for Docket No. 2007-OE-02 (the draft Southwest Area National Corridor), comments must be marked “Attn: Docket No. 2007-OE-02.”
==========================

This is the proposed Mid-Atlantic Area National Corridor, I’d heard questions about this from Pennsylvania and New York, and it seems it covers half the state of Delaware (that doesn’t take much):

This is the proposed Southwest Area National Corridor:

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is holding three public meetings on the two draft National Corridor Designations announced on April 26, 2007. The meetings are being held in two eastern locations and one southwest location, and they’re not readily accessible. The one in Washington, D.C. is held at a hotel where parking is $18/day and not on a Metro stop — it seems that there MUST be somewhere with a sufficiently large meeting room with parking and more direct accessibility — but who wants that pesky “public” there anyway!
Two public meetings will be held on Docket NO. 2007-OE-01 (the Draft Mid-Atlantic Area National Corridor Designation) – in Arlington, VA, on May 15, 2007, and in New York, NY, on May 23, 2007 – and one public meeting will be held on Docket NO.2007-OE-02 (the Draft Southwest Area National Corridor Designation) – in San Diego on May 17, 2007.

Arlington, VA Meeting on May 15:

Doubletree Hotel Crystal City-National Airport
300 Army Navy Drive
Arlington, VA 22202-2891
Phone: 703-416-4100

(hotel says parking costs $18!)

San Diego, CA Meeting on May 17:

Manchester Grand Hyatt San Diego Hotel
One Market Place
San Diego, California 92101
Phone: (619) 232-1234

New York, NY Meeting on May 23:

Park Central New York Hotel
870 Seventh Avenue at 56th Street
New York, NY 10019-4038
Phone: 212-247-8000
From their blurb:

DOE invites all interested parties to participate in the public meetings and to provide oral and written comments at these sessions in addition to submitting comments in response to the Federal Register Notice on Draft National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor Designations.

Agenda

Each of the three meetings will have the same basic format:
9:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m. Registration Desk Open
10:00 a.m. – 10:30 a.m. DOE Opening Remarks and Presentation
10:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. Public Comments
12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m. Lunch (on participants own)
1:30 p.m. – 3:30 p.m. Public Comments

Advance registration is not required to attend. However, participants who would like to provide oral comments must sign up in advance.

Sign-up to Provide Public Comments at the Meeting

If you would like to present oral comments at one of the meetings, you must register in advance. The opportunity to comment will be limited to 2 minutes per presenter. Those wishing to provide oral comments will present on the day of the meeting in the order in which they are received. Sign-up here to provide public comments.

Each public meeting will be transcribed and the transcript will be posted on the web site following the meeting. To supplement oral comments, written comments may be submitted.

For More Information

For general information on the Draft National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor Designations, please visit http://nietc.anl.gov.

Contacts
Poonum Agrawal (Technical Contact)
Manager
Markets & Technical Integration
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability
U.S. Department of Energy
Phone: (202) 586-6048
Email: poonum.agrawal@hq.doe.gov

Lauren Giles (Logistics)
Program Manager
Energetics Incorporated
Phone: (410) 953-6250
Email: LGiles@energetics.com

Here’s a link to PJM Transmission Maps. Most of the affected area is in PJM, though not all.

ConocoPhillips says it’s paying attention:

“Our industry has lost touch with the public,” said Conoco’s Bob Ridge in his opening statements. “We did a poll, and we found our credibility was below the tobacco industry. We want to listen.”

From the Rochester Post Bulletin:

Conoco holds town meeting in Rochester to improve image

As I said before, when ConocoPhillips comes to down on the heels of its big technology gamble, coal gasification, going down the hopper in spectacular flames, I’m wary, and I’m downright suspicious when “our” very own Ed Garvey is up there on the bias… er… dais… errrrr… bias… And the CERTs folks are not to happy that I’m asking questions about their promotion of this event, and consenting to parts of two front rows and breakfast the next day (dinner before hand perhaps?) But ConocoPhillips has a lot at stake here, IGCC alone is a tremendous investment, even for the likes of a company that big. Anyway, I was ready, I went with my friend Tom, who’s pretty laid back, and fortified myself with two mango margaroodies from Fiesta before hand — a sure way to keep me quiet throughout. That and my “no bark” collar! Meanwhile, Chuck Michels of SEH and Mike Gregorson of Great Plains Institute were getting a vicarious thrill wondering what’s up in Delaware!?!?! Jeez, get a life… Poor Mike gets assigned to follow me over to Denver 2/12 for our IGCC Conference and then to be in Grand Rapids 2/14 (and he got to fly, not fair…) — hey, Mike, here’s a hint — are you booked yet for the PSC meeting on May 8 in Dover, maybe the deathknell of yet another IGCC project??? See ya there!

Oh, and someone thinks I need to post “my price” on the blog… let’s just keep them guessing.

I was paying attention to Ed Garvey’s Comments, which started with four important points:

1) Humans cause climate change

2) Renew, manage, replace and improve current energy infrastructure

3) Promote renewables

4) Increase conservation and efficiency

As he said that, both Tom and I noticed that conservation and efficiency were DEAD LAST. Better reverse that order! grrrrrrrrrrrrrr…

Anyway, his final four points are supposed to be a policy statement, but the horiffic things that are happening in energy right now show that there’s something wrong here. He’s saying that energy must be:
– Reliable

– Low Cost

– Community Based

– Environmentally Superior

Ummmmm… could someone please let Governor Pawlenty know of his own “policy” points so he’s not supporting unsupportable projects like the boondoggle Mesaba Project, and the massive coal enabling transmission of CapX2020? Ahem…