Chisago — State cuts out the public
April 15th, 2007
It’s not just in Delaware. Things got wound up in the Chisago Transmission Line docket, starting Friday, the 6th. For background, check these dockets:
04-1176
06-1677
To do that, go to www.puc.state.mn.us and then to “eDockets” and then to “Search documents” and then search for the dockets.
Friday was the day when Commerce sent this convoluted and tortured responsive letter (not pleading) to the City of Lindstrom’s Motion to Extend Task Force:
Here’s their take — which is beyond… beyond… well, read it for yourself:
The Commerce position was a bit more than I could take — to think that, even where the PUC decision is silent on it, to think that the routing of the Chisago project is not a contested case is just nuts, so I fired off this quickie Petition to get this nailed down:
They’ve been doing a good job of trying to keep the public out, keeping local government out. It started right out the gate, when Xcel didn’t serve me with the Certificate of Need application, and then didn’t seve me with the Routing application either! They didn’t serve my former client, Concerned River Valley Citizens, etiher. Chisago City was not served with notice or the application or with notice of the Citizens Task Force. CRVC participated in the notice plan, and yet when it was time for Comments on Completeness, Commerce did not bother to serve any of us with those Comments, and when challenged, PUC staff Bret Ekness said they were only about “completeness” and that the Comment period shouldn’t be extended. Nevermind that they were arguing for a “non-contested” proceeding, which given Chisago history is NOT realistic. Then came the PUC hearing, at which time Jim Alders addressed whether it should be a contested case, saying that the company expected it would be a contested case and that Xcel did not have an issue with that.
But noooo, that’s not the end of it. Last Monday, the ALJ issued two Orders, one regarding the City of Lindstrom’s Motion to Extend Task Force:
But noooo, that’s not the end of it. Here’s the Minnesota version of gavelling the public, quashing participation:
By Wednesday of this week, the ALJÂ has ordered CRVC that:
3.   On or before 4:30 p.m. on Wednesday, April 18, 2007, a representative of the Concerned River Valley Citizens shall file responsive papers addressing the following matters:
a.   Whether either Mr. Neuman or Ms. Johnson is licensed to practice law in Minnesota or any other jurisdiction;
b.   Whether, in the view of the association, representation of Concerned River Valley Citizens by a non-attorney would amount to the unauthorized practice of law, as those terms are used in Rule 1400.5800;
c.   Whether, in the view of the association, retaining the services of a licensed attorney to appear on behalf of Concerned River Valley Citizens would be unduly burdensome;
d.   Whether the Concerned River Valley Citizens, if granted intervention as a party, would seek access to confidential trade secret data; and,
e.   Whether a more limited role than intervention, under Rule 1400.7150, might meet the needs of Concerned River Valley Citizens
…. sigh… can you believe????
So we’re before the PUC on Thursday.
Gavels away — Delaware PSC hearing on IRP
April 14th, 2007
One of the hearings for the Delaware Integrated Resource Plan was Wednesday – they were Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, and I figured I’d get to two out of three, but then Thursday the Mesaba decision came down at 5:18 p Eastern Time, necessitating an evening of email and phone calls, and then I got carried away with celebrating and forgot to post this, and so now that it’s down to a dull roar, oh well, better late than never, here it is!!
Written comments from the public will be accepted on or before Wednesday, May 2, 2007. Written comments should be submitted to the Commission at 861 Silver Lake Boulevard, Cannon Building, Suite100, Dover, Delaware 19904.
It just sorta rolled along, first to speak about the IRP was James Black of the Clean Air Council; then Lisa Pertzoff of Delaware League of Women Voters; then John Flaherty, lobbyist for Common Cause but speaking as an individual; Richard Fleming of Delaware Nature Society; Willard Kempton of the College of Marine and Earth Studies, University of Delaware, representing himself; Karen Igou, Green Party of Delaware (perhaps speaking as an individual); Elaine Titus who had an off-topic question about relationship between Delmarva and Atlantic City Electric; Andrew Waltz, an individual; Moi; Tom “NO-YES” who works for Sam Waltz but speaking as an individual; Caleb James, an individual.
Overall, the public is clamoring for wind generation. Like the Northfield phone survey a while back, a recent study demonstrated that over 80% of the people surveyed want wind, and they want it now. What concerned me about the IRP is that there’s general confusion or lack of understanding of what Integrated Resource Planning is. Most of the Commenters were saying “approve the Bluewater Wind proposal” but that’s the Request for Proposals (RFP) docket, not the Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) docket. That’s not going to happen in the IRP. What’s needed is Comments on IRP issues like how exactly will DP&L fulfil the SOS (SOL) load? What is the generation mix? Given the statute, how much weight on the different criteria listed in HB6 (that’s all below).
Here’s the Bluewater Wind proposal everyone is so hot to trot about!
I had a chat with Peter Mandelstam about Bluewater’s role in the IRP, because what would really jar Delaware’s thinking into where it NEEDS to be is to propose a wind/gas combo. With that, the awful coal plant owned by NRG could be shut down! What’s it going to take? A little uumph and cooperation from Connectiv?
Here’s the report in the News-Journal:
But a recurrent problem, rearing its ugly head on Wednesday night, is that public participation is being quashed, and those who have intervened are being forbidden to speak at the public hearings! How ludicrous! Here’s what the News-Journal wouldn’t report:
At the beginning of the hearing, there was some discussion about the PSC’s Hearing Examiner O’Brien’s decision that Intervenors could not comment at the public hearing opportunities, and apparently Firestone had put in his two cents worth at the unreasonableness of that decision. Later in at the hearing, when asked by Intervenor Alan Muller to cite the authority for banning intervenors from making comments at the Public Hearing on the Integrated Resource Plan, Hearing Examiner Ruth(less) Price said, gavelling as she angrily spoke:
“I’m not citing anything. You’ve heard me, and that’s it. Intervenors will have an extensive opportunity in an evidentiary hearing to be heard…”
Funny thing was, she didn’t cite any authority for quashing public participation! And Alan didn’t even have his gag on…
After the hearing ended, PSC Chair Arnetta McRae, who was in the audience at the time, flagged me town and wanted to know if I was up on Delaware law, if I had the background information (assuming I did not know, that I had no clue), about whichI was knowledgable enough to point out that they were opearating without rules!!! Oh well, as with Minnesota, who needs rules for utility regulation?!?!?
But it’s convoluted, the public does not understand IRP v. RFP. Deregulation was believed to have eliminated IRP, though I think that’s wishful thinking on the part of DPSC, the party line and not quite reality. HB6, which was an attempt by the Delaware legislature to mitigate the extreme cost increases of deregulation — remember how this was supposed to LOWER rates? Right, well, here’s an example of what it means to cower before that corporate lie! Politicians are feeling the heat from furious consumers, and so instituted HB6 to look at long term power contracts to stabilize rates. This only affects the Standard Offer Service customers (I think of them not as “SOS” but as the “SOL” ratepayers) who are the ones, the vast majority of ratepayers, who did not opt out of DP&L. But talk of the huge rate increases has died down, and in its place has come a massive movement for wind generation. This by far out paces al other concerns — Delaware residents want wind generation! And wind generation can best be accomplished through a thorough resource planning process. IRP is what sets the policy, IRP is what drives electric generation choices.
As to Integrated Resource Planning specifically, here’s what HB6 says:
(c)(1) DP&L is required to conduct Integrated Resource Planning. On December 1, 2006, and on the anniversary date of the first filing date of every other year thereafter (i.e., 2008, 2010 et seq.), DP&L shall file with the Commission, the Controller General, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Energy Office an Integrated Resource Plan (“IRPâ€). In its IRP, DP&L shall systematically evaluate all available supply options during a ten (10)-year planning period in order to acquire sufficient, efficient and reliable resources over time to meet its customers’ needs at a minimal cost. The IRP shall set forth DP&L’s supply and demand forecast for the next ten (10)-year period, and shall set forth the resource mix with which DP&L proposes to meet its supply obligations for that ten-year period (i.e., Demand-Side Management Programs, long-term purchased power contracts, short-term purchased power contracts, self generation, procurement through wholesale market by RFP, spot market purchases, etc.).
1. As part of its IRP process, DP&L shall not rely exclusively on any particular resource or purchase procurement process. In its IRP, DP&L shall explore in detail all reasonable short- and long-term procurement or Demand-Side Management strategies, even if a particular strategy is ultimately not recommended by the Company. At least 30 percent of the resource mix of DP&L shall be purchases made through the regional wholesale market via a bid procurement or auction process held by DP&L. Such process shall be overseen by the Commission subject to the procurement process approved in PSC Docket #04-391 as may be modified by future Commission action.
2. In developing the IRP, DP&L may consider the economic and environmental value of:
(i) resources that utilize new or innovative baseload technologies (such as coal gasification);
(ii) resources that provide short- or long-term environmental benefits to the citizens of this State (such as renewable resources like wind and solar power);
(iii) facilities that have existing fuel and transmission infrastructure;
(iv) facilities that utilize existing brownfield or industrial sites;
(v) resources that promote fuel diversity;
(vi) resources or facilities that support or improve reliability; or
(vii) resources that encourage price stability.
The IRP must investigate all potential opportunities for a more diverse supply at the lowest reasonable cost.
3. The Commission shall have the authority to promulgate any rules and regulations it deems necessary to accomplish the development of IRPs by DP&L. Commencing in 2009, DP&L shall submit a report to the Commission, the Governor and the General Assembly detailing their progress in implementing their IRPs.
26 Del.C. § 1007(c)(1).
There’s a lot of room there for thorough inquiry and development of a truly Integrated Resource Plan. So open the process up and get to work!!!! Hear that, Delaware?
More on Mesaba ALJ denial recommendation
April 13th, 2007
The silence is deafening… the email is way too quiet, well, plus my phone reception sucks out here… but here’s a response I received after sending out notification of the ALJ Recommendation to PUC:
Please remove me from your email list you pyschotic freak - pull your head out of your ass and join the real world. You and the rest of the CAVE people do not deal in facts or in reality. If overaggressive physcotic freaks like you would use your energy for something productive we might actually find solutions to our problems rather than being constantly creating new ones.
From someone ostensibly named “Shalom.” Hmmmm…
And just in case you missed it, here’s the ALJs’ Recommendation of Denial:
One relevant thing that made me snort — consider Pawlenty’s rabid and unjustified support of Mesaba, knowing it was going down in flames — and he had this to say recently per Polinaut:
That was in the Brainard Dispatch too:
From the Duluth News Tribune, here’s another guy who will have to run for office again, yet here he is, pontificating on Mesaba’s demise:
And remember, Sen. Tom Saxhaug is the guy who tried to ram through the Mesaba personal property tax exemption without letting the local governments know he’d submitted the bill!!! The county got on him about it and it was QUICKLY amended to include the necessity of a Host Fee Agreement to assure local governments get their fair share instead of getting screwed. He showed just what constituents he was representing in that little maneuver, and he showed his utter disregard for the public interest.
Meanwhile, Tom Micheletti’s not having a very good day.
Also from the Duluth News Tribune, Micheletti’s comments:
On Thursday night, Micheletti said he is “shocked,†by the judges’ conclusions.
Micheletti said the conclusions don’t mean the project is dead, but he clearly isconcerned.
Here’s from the STrib:
By Mike Meyers, Star Tribune
The dream of a $2 billion coal-gasification plant on the Iron Range the was dealt a setback Thursday when two administrative law judges urged the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission to deny the plans of Excelsior Energy, a newcomer power company.
While not binding on regulators, the ruling is filled with warnings, from doubts that the plant will burn coal as cleanly as guaranteed to an opinion that Excelsior would not, as promised, likely deliver electricity at a lower cost than alternative energy suppliers.
After sifting through thousands of pages of testimony in a hotly contested case, judges Steve Mihalchick and Bruce Johnson wrote that the plan is “not in the public interest.”
The judges’ warnings to the utilities commission — which is expected to rule on the project later this year — include cautions about whether risks to Minnesota’s economy would be overshadowed by the benefits of the biggest investment in decades on the troubled Iron Range.
And, in a move that undermines a key argument for building the Excelsior plant, the judges found that the design to transform pulverized coal into gas is not particularly new or innovative.
To build the plant, Excelsior needs a customer. The Legislature four years ago directed Xcel Energy Inc. to buy power from the proposed 600-megawatt plant. But Xcel, in expert testimony, said the power isn’t needed in 2011 when Excelsior’s Mesaba plant is supposed to open.
Xcel argued that Excelsior’s power would cost more than alternatives and put Xcel at financial risk if everything didn’t go according to plan — two arguments the administrative law judges accepted in their findings.
The project would create 3,500 construction jobs from 2008 to 2011, according to Excelsior’s economic consultant, and employ 107 full-time workers to keep the plant running. The company said millions of dollars in benefits would flow to local communities, as well.
But the judges were skeptical. “There are economic development benefits to the state from the project, especially to the nearby area,” they wrote. “There are also negative economic development impacts from the increased costs that will be passed on to business and individual ratepayers and from the negative environmental consequences of the project.
“Overall, the economic development benefits weigh in favor of the project. But they do not justify an unreasonable price for its electric capacity and energy.”
Excelsior officials were unavailable for comment.
Xcel offered a cautious response:
“We have not had the opportunity to review the administrative law judges’ report in detail,” said Judy Poferl, Xcel director of regulatory administration. “We appreciate that the judges recognized the concerns raised by the parties to this proceeding. We will continue to participate in this case and look forward to resolution by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission.”
The commission is expected to rule on the proposal this summer.
Mike Meyers • 612-673-1746 • meyers@startribune.com
ALJ RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF MESABA PPA
April 12th, 2007
.
Read all about it:
ALJ RECOMMENDATION – DENIAL OF PPA
From the decision:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission and the Administrative Law Judges have jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 216B.08, 216B.1693, 216B.1694, and 14.50, Minn. R. 1400.5100-.8400, and to the extent not superseded by those rules, Minn. R. 7829.0100-.3200.
2. The Commission gave proper notice of the hearing in this matter, has fulfilled all relevant substantive and procedural requirements of law or rule, and has the authority to take the action proposed.
3. The IEP Statute permits the Commission to amend or modify the initial PPA to raise or lower the amount of the Project’s statutory power sale entitlement.
4. The Project does not satisfy the first prong of the definition of an Innovative Energy Project under Minn. Stat. § 216B.1694, subd. 1(1), because the Final PPA does not assure that coal will be used as the primary fuel and because it has not been established that the Project significantly reduces all of the statutorily identified emissions in comparison to traditional technologies.
5. The Project satisfies the second prong of definition of an Innovative Energy Project under Minn. Stat. § 216B.1694, subd. 1(2), because it is capable of offering a long-term supply contract at a hedged, predictable cost.
6. Since the Project fails to meet the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 216B.1694, subd. 1(1), it is not an “Innovative Energy Project†for purposes of Minn. Stat. § 216B.1694.
7. Since the Project is not an Innovative Energy Project, it does not qualify under Minn. Stat. § 216B.1694, subd. 2(a)(4), as a “Clean Energy Technology” as defined in section 216B.1693.
8. The Final PPA is not in the public interest as required by Minn. Stat. § 216B.1694, subd. 2(a)(7).
9. The Final PPA should not be approved, primarily because of its unreasonable cost to Xcel Energy and its ratepayers, the likelihood that its cost will increase, not decrease over time, and because of the other deficiencies identified in the Findings. While Excelsior Energy and its witnesses have claimed that the PPA cost will become more reasonable in the future, particularly in light of the Project’s environmental benefits, there is not sufficient evidence of that value to overcome the very significant cost difference that exists today.
10. The Project and its technology do not meet the definition of a Clean Energy Technology under Minn. Stat. §216B.1693(c) because they do not significantly reduce all the statutorily identified emissions in comparison to traditional technologies.
11. The Project and its technology do not satisfy the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 216B.1693(a) because the Final PPA is not, and is not likely to be, a least cost resource including the costs of ancillary services and other necessary generation and transmission upgrades.
12. It would be contrary to the public interest for the Project to supply at least two percent of Xcel Energy’s retail load starting in 2012.
Based on the foregoing Conclusions, and for reasons set forth in the following Memorandum, the Administrative Law Judges make the following:
RECOMMENDATION
IT IS HEREBY RESPECTFULLY RECOMMENDED that the Public Utilities Commission order:
1. That Excelsior Energy’s Petition asking the Commission to approve, amend, or modify the terms and conditions of the Final PPA under Minn. Stat. § 216B.1694 be DENIED and that the Final PPA be DISAPPROVED.
2. That if the Commission approves the Final PPA, that it first be amended through negotiations among Excelsior Energy, Xcel Energy, and the Department to address the deficiencies identified in this Report, then returned to the Commission for final approval.
3. That Excelsior Energy’s Petition asking the Commission to determine under Minn. Stat. § 216B.1693 that the Project and its IGCC technology is, or is likely to be, a least-cost resource, thus obligating Xcel Energy to use the plant’s generation for at least two percent of the energy supplied to its retail customers, be DENIED.
4. That Excelsior Energy’s Petition asking the Commission to determine that, under the terms of Minn. Stat. § 216B.1693, at least 13 percent of the energy supplied to Xcel Energy’s retail customers should come from the Units I and II of the Mesaba Energy Project by 2013 be considered in Phase 2 of this matter.
Dated: April 12, 2007
/s/ Steve M. Mihalchick
STEVE M. MIHALCHICK
Administrative Law Judge/s/ Bruce H. Johnson
BRUCE H. JOHNSON
Administrative Law Judge
Excelsior – Mesaba: We’re still waiting
April 11th, 2007
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR