Kenyon Wind – Price of Wind
May 1st, 2007
In today’s STrib, a letter from my clients, neighbors to the proposed Kenyon Wind project:
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
Another outrageous ALJ Order
May 1st, 2007
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.
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:
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…
Comment on proposed Transmission Corridors
April 29th, 2007
.
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!
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 CommentsAdvance 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.govLauren 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 draws a crowd!
April 28th, 2007
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:
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…
ConocoPhillips Town Hall Meeting
April 26th, 2007
ConocoPhillips Road Show is coming to your town:
Jan. 17: Reno, Nev. July 18: Wilmington, Del.
From the Inbox from Green Delaware:
ConocoPhillips Town Hall Meeting — “a conversation on energy”
ConocoPhillips (CP) is a major promoter of “(un)clean coal” gasification technology. CP is one of the few vendors of “gasifier” technology, a key element of the heavily-promoted “new” way to burn coal.
CP is a main technology provider for the proposed Mesaba IGCC project in Northern Minnesota.
Minnesota Administrative Law Judges recently recommended that Mesaba not be approved. Here’s the ALJ decision.
On April 26, in Rochester, MN, CP will sponsor one of a national series of meetings at which the giant oil company will present its present views on US energy policy.
A Conversation on Energy will be hosted by ConocoPhillips and the University
of Minnesota, Initiative for Renewable Energy and the Environment (IREE) and
moderated by Richard “Dick” Hemmingsen, Director of IREE. In addition to
speakers from ConocoPhillips, invited panelists include representatives from
the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, Minnesota Renewable Energy Society and other organizations active in business and industry.
Also see ConocoPhillips Energy Guide.
These “conversations on energy” smell like a public relations campaign by CP and other big fossil fuelers to pretend to do something about global warming, while coopting for-real advocates. They have realized that simple denial won’t work any more and they need a more nuanced line.
Ed Burke, of ConocoPhillips, said that industry researchhas shown “we’ve lost all credibility, we’re at the bottom of the list, below even tobacco!” We’re viewed as caring only about profits and high salaries, and we need to get back in touch with the American people.” He notes that global warming is an issue “and we need to do something about it.” These meetings are not really a hard sell on the company at all. They’re doing meetings in 35 cities, and this is the 11th one. When asked if it has anything to do with the Mesaba Project, he said “absolutely not. It’s about opening a dialog with the Amercan people. It’s about how do we do innovation… new energy solutions…”
Guess? Truly independent voices won’t be prominent at these meetings. We’ll see…
For example, the panelist lineup in Rochester includes:
Loren Abraham of the Minnesota Renewable Energy Society 612.308.4757
Chuck Laszewski of the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy 651.223.5969
Edward Garvey, deputy commissioner of the Combined Energy and Telecommunications division of the Minnesota Department of Commerce
Bob Ridge, CP, Vice-President for Health, Safety and Environmental
Sabrina Watkins, CP, Manager, Advanced Technology
Carol Overland has been a key opponent of IGCC projects. She commented:
“ConocoPhillips is a technology provider for coal gasification projects such as Mesaba. The same technology is utilized at the Wabash River plant that has been such a disaster both economically and environmentally. They are choosing to do a road show at this time when the Mesaba project is going down in flames, and that they are featuring Ed Garvey, a top energy official in Governor Pawlenty’s administration. I’m concerned they are trying to grease the skids for Excelsior Energy, the Mesaba promoters, contrary to the recommendations of the judges assigned to the case. It’s noteworthy that they have scheduled stops in other locations where IGCC projects are proposed, such as Delaware, Alaska, West Virginia, Indiana, New York, Texas, and Arizona. How can it be anything other than a promotional road show?”
Overland is concerned about the participation of representatives of the Minnesota Renewable Energy Society and the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy. “MCEA was ineffective and lackadaisical in opposing the Mesaba Project.”* Â Why is MCEA now cooperating with ConocoPhillips? Thankfully, Fresh Energy [ formerly Minnesotans for an Energy-Efficient Economy] had the sense to turn this “opportunity” down.”
Doug Shoemaker , Co-Chair of the participating Minnesota Renewable Energy Society had some concerns: “… at least on the surface it looks good,” but “we’ve got … [questions] … hanging over our heads.”
Chuck Laszewski of the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy told us: “We thought about it in some depth because were concerned that it could be seen as some sort of greenwashing.” But on balance, MCEA concluded that it would be “a worthwhile opportunity to get our opinions out.”
Corporations are usually more sophisticated than community-based advocacy groups. Is CP successfully using orgs in Minnesota and elsewhere to greenwash itself? Or are these meetings indeed a “worthwhile opportunity?”
We can’t judge doings in Minnesota, but in Delaware many orgs would be flattered to be invited, would crave the exposure, and would hop on board without intelligently considering the consequences of their actions.
The CP road show is scheduled to come to Wilmington, Delaware, on July 18, 2007.
Alan Muller
Alan Muller, Executive Director
Green Delaware
Box 69
Port Penn, DE 19731 USA
302.834.3466
greendel@dca.net
www.greendel.org
* Ineffective and lackidasical? Isn’t that a bit harsh? Well, considering that they presented only a CO2 case, did not deal with the economics of the project, and did not participate in any of the kick ass motions flying around, didn’t argue to free information up to the public and didn’t know that we’d won those motions, didn’t even submit a Summary Motion of any sort… and then there’s this, released last week, knowing that the decision turned on choice of fuel, unreasonable cost and broad emissions non-performance:
“Had the Excelsior proponents made a clear commitment to carbon capture and storage in a reasonable time after it was built, we might have had a different view as to whether the project should go forward,†said Bill Grant, associate executive director of Izaak Walton League of America.