Legalectric

From 2006 Gov’s Wade In event!

Then, she was almost in over her head, and now she’s as bad as Governor Pawlenty, shamefully promoting IGCC, coal gasification, when the truth is out there for all the world to see…

In today’s News Journal:

Minner sees role for NRG coal plant

Gov. Ruth Ann Minner still believes a coal gasification plant could be right for Delaware, despite the Public Service Commission’s endorsement this week of wind power.

The governor said it might make sense to combine wind power with NRG Energy’s proposed coal plant, a combination that provoked skepticism from some energy specialists.

Tell Gov. Minner what you think about her stand on IGCC: (302) 744-4101 Dover; (302) 577-3210 Wilmington.

Email her Chief of Staff, Mark Brainard at mark.brainard@state.de.us

What did NRG propose? Worth a look see to check out their professional redaction job:

CLICK HERE FOR SITE WITH RFP BIDS

Gov. Minner puts her credibility on the line for NRG? Why? IGCC (coal gasification) is the biggest boondoggle to come down the pike. The people of Delaware are not aware of the details of the NRG proposal because it has been kept shrouded in secrecy. But it’s all public information in Minnesota’s Excelsior Energy docket about the PPA for the Mesaba Project.

ALJs’ Decision Here

Shouldn’t Gov. Minner be paying attention to this extensive record and detailed decision?

What the record, agency staff analysis, and the ALJ decision in our proceeding demonstrates, and NRG has NOT proven otherwise, is that IGCC is not environmentally superior. It does not significantly reduce major pollutants when compared with state of the art coal. IGCC does not do one thing for CO2 levels other than greatly increase them! Like the Mesaba Project, NRG does not commit to carbon capture and storage (CSS), and that’s because it’s not a demonstrated option, no commercial IGCC plant is doing it. CSS is not happening anytime soon, and the DOE said so in its addendum to the Gilberton coal-to-liquids EIS.

DOE Addendum – Blog Post

Shouldn’t Gov. Minner be paying attention to the DOE?

Another thing the Excelsior record demonstrates is that IGCC is very very costly, and not in the public interest. The whole point of HB6 and the PSC’s RFP docket is to gain price stability for the SOS ratepayers, and IGCC, with its reliance on a commercially undemonstrated technology, one deemed by the DOE to be “too risky for private investment” is not a reasonable way to achieve it. IGCC, because it is “too risky,” can only gain a foothold with massive federal and state subsidies, on the backs of the taxpayers, and what would we get? Another economic and environmental disaster like Wabash River, so unreliable it took 22 full time engineers to cobble it together, it was shut down because it was inoperable, it was routinely violating the water permit… great idea…

Shouldn’t Gov. Minner be paying attention to the past IGCC projects?

As I testified before the PSC on Tuesday, admonishing DNREC’s Phil Cherry for his astounding false statements in support of IGCC, there’s just no excuse for supporting IGCC given the MN record that is PUBLIC for the world to see and consider. Their statements are contrary to the evidence. Politically, that’s a bad spot to be in.

Shouldn’t Gov. Minner recognize the opportunity to direct Delaware energy policy in a sustainable, renewable direction? Shouldn’t Gov. Minner reject unreliable, costly and risky IGCC?

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!!

Integrated Resource Plan Docket Site

RFP Docket Site

Public Notice – How to Submit Comments

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:

Public weighs in on state’s energy plan

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 (“IRP”). 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?

As I sit here watching the cooling tower plume of Salem I & II waft by, it’s hard to ignore the idiocy of the state of energy generation proposals.  Coal gasification… nuclear… Whatever are they thinking????

In a number of states, legislation is being introduced, a la Harvard, which gives IGCC perks and benefits to make IGCC seem competitive, to make it seem like a good idea. It happened in South Dakota recently, and now it’s Florida’s turn.

Florida’s taking a dive off the cliff and quickly moving toward legislation to pave the way for coal gasificaiton (IGCC). Remember the Harvard Report, Volume 1? Deploying IGCC in this Decade with 3 Party Covenant Financing. If you haven’t read it, at least read the first 21 pages to get the depth and breadth of what they’re proposing. It sets out a detailed scheme of risk shifting to facilitate coal gasification market penetration — something that ought to have the free marketers across the country flapping… The Harvard plan requires federal perks, like outright grants; the DOE “studies” on sequestration, use of different coals; tax breaks like the 48A DOE credits; federally guaranteed loans. It requries state perks like outright grants, more tax breaks, and regulatory acquiesence. And from the project proposer, they can get by with 20% equity, not the typical 45% for a generating plant, and worse, they can get into it with just a Power Purchase Agreement as their equity. So we’ve got a new, unproven shaky technology that HAS been proven to have a capital cost of $2,155,680,783, or $3,593/kW; a piss-poor emissions profile and which doesn’t capture CO2; and that costs 9-13 cents/kWh… well, folks, it seems to me the market has already decided that IGCC is a pig in a poke. On top of that is a pattern of IGCC proposals where there is no demonstrated need for the power. AAAAAAAAAARGH!!!

But states march on in lockstep. Most likely the legislators, like the enviros supporting IGCC (NRDC,Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, TNC, Audubon, et al.), have no clue of the realities, they do not have a clue what we’ve learned via Excelsior’s Mesaba Project. That’s a pretty irresponsible position, and worse, if they DO know and advocate none the less, that’s reprehensible. The problems with IGCC are all laid out so well in the Excelsior Energy Mesaba Project docket at our PUC. Or like the Delaware PSC docket on NRG’s proposed IGCC project, rated as the lowest of three bidders:

Delaware Independent Consultant Report

Delmarva RFP Bid Evaluation Report

Florida specifically, though, has a first hand expert view of the problems with IGCC in response to pseudo-enviro demands that IGCC be considered (WHAT IS SO DIFFICULT ABOUT “NO NEW COAL PLANTS” ?????):

Testimony of Steve Jenkins – Florida Glades Power Plant

But when you’ve got “friends” like Richard “the Vermin” Furman demanding IGCC, well, those’s fightin’ words:

Testimony of Richard C. Furman – Florida Glades Power Plant

So enough background and now on to the point — as this Glades Power Plant project moves through the Florida PSC, where a big coal plant is proposed, there’s legislation in Florida:

Bill Number: HB549/SB1202
Sponsors: Rep. Traviesa & Senator Bennett

CLICK HERE FOR STATUS OF HF549

CLICK HERE FOR HB 549 TEXT

At those sites are links to the Senate version.

Author in the House is Traviesa and co-sponsors are Ambler; Aubuchon; Brandenburg; Brisé; Cusack; Garcia, R.; Glorioso; Grimsley; Hasner; Homan; Kendrick; Kreegel; Machek; Mayfield; McKeel; Murzin; Nehr; Planas; Precourt; Richardson; Seiler; Troutman; Weatherford; Williams.

Author in the Senate is Bennett and co-sponsors are Aronberg; Dockery; Lynn; Fasano; Joyner; Constantine; Jones; Gaetz.

To contact Florida Senators and Representatives, click on their name above to get to their individual page to send an email. TELL THEM WHAT YOU KNOW ABOUT IGCC!!!

All over the U.S., they’re trying to keep the facts of IGCC from the public. Why? DUH, because if the facts were known, IGCC would be dead.

Well, surprise, surprise, it’s PUBLIC INFORMATION!!! Nearly all of the Minnesota information is public, and despite this very public collection of IGCC information, Delaware, Indiana and Florida are keeping essential facts from the public.

But wait… it gets worse… some thing the public has no interest in the information, that the public has no business in these proceedings, that the public is not a stakeholder.

Can you believe it??? From the Delaware Public Service Commission Staff:

… although the public is a beneficiary of the work performed by Commission Staff in its attempt to release as much information as possible, the public is not a stakeholder in the Commission’s, and other agencies’, determination as to whether such work should be adopted.

Hiding the facts in Delaware:

DAG Memo on Confidentiality 2-12-07
NRG on Confidentiality 2-16-07

Staff Memo on Confidentiality 2-23-07

NRG Response on Confidentiality 2-26-07

Staff Memo on Confidentiality 3-13-07

Hiding the facts in Indiana:

Edwardsport – Joint Motion – Confidentiality

IURC Order – Confidentiality

Hiding the facts in Minnesota:

250017260protective-order-1.DOC

Order on Motion to Enforce Protective Order

Hiding the facts in Florida:

FPL’s Motion for Protective Order 3-12-07

For all of you who want to know what’s what in coal gasification, go to www.mncoalgasplant.com and start digging. The Minnesota PUC filings are there, and are also available at www.puc.state.mn.us, go to “eDockets” and then to “Search Documents” and then search for 05-1993.  This docket is the first one to come down the pike, and the costs are so high and the environmental performance so low that it will fall on its own.  And this is the information that must get out — this information tanks any IGCC proposal.

If you have any concerns about what this all means, see:

Testimony of Steve Jenkins – Florida Glades Power Plant

Steve Jenkins has spent a career promoting IGCC, and he explains it all — he knows the problems and testifies about them at great lengths.  But folks, it’s really not that complicated. Message: IGCC can’t stand the light of day.

Energy debate continues at series of public hearings
By Rachel Swick
Cape Gazette staff

Public hearings kicked off this week to discuss the future of power in Delaware, while at the same time evaluations of three proposals were released, instantly drawing criticism from two of the power bidders.

The evaluation by state agencies and an independent consultant looked at three proposals submitted to the state Public Service Commission (PSC) and Delmarva Power for a long-term contract for new power.

The proposals include a 200-megawatt natural gas plant from Conectiv, a 600-megawatt coal-gasification plant from NRG Energy and a 600-megawatt off-shore wind farm from Bluewater Wind.

The results ranked Conectiv first, with Bluewater Wind in second and NRG, third.

Jim Lanard, director of strategic planning and communications for Bluewater Wind, said the evaluations were inconsistent, giving such a great advantage to Conectiv for its lower price that the other proposals could not equal Conectiv – even though they may have outscored the natural-gas plant on aspects such as fuel diversity, innovative technology and environmental impact.

“It’s impossible to compare the three companies when Conectiv admits they will change their price in the future,” said Lanard, who questioned whether the price Conectiv quoted for costs associated with natural gas are realistic or just overly optimistic.

Lanard said the evaluation process was inconsistent because evaluators used one scale for price categories and an entirely different method when looking at emissions and environmental impact. He said the same scale should have been used for each factor; had the same scale been used, the overall results would have been different.

“Just with changes to those categories, Bluewater would be considerably ahead,” said Lanard.

Evaluation process flawed

While NRG officials did not agree that Bluewater would be ahead, they did agree that the evaluation did not come out with the best solution to Delaware’s energy problems.

“We absolutely stand behind our proposal, which would allow Delaware to meet its energy needs and environmental objectives affordably with IGCC and carbon capture and sequestration, now and into the future,” said Caroline Angoorly, NRG’s senior vice president for the Northeast Region.

“After reviewing the initial evaluation reports, however, I’m concerned that all of the taxpayer-funded work done to make this a competitive process, with an independent evaluation of the value being offered to the state, has been wasted.”

NRG concluded that the consultants’ report is fundamentally flawed on many levels. Most notably, the report recommends state agencies do the exact opposite of what the request for proposals was intended to accomplish. The consultants, who ranked each proposal on a point system, gave the most points to a natural gas project – when the process was designed to move Delaware toward greater fuel diversity.

“More natural gas generation means Delaware ratepayers will be vulnerable to more volatile and high gas prices,” said Angoorly. “Moving to IGCC technology would provide increased fuel diversity and would allow us to use U.S. coal, which has much more stable pricing than natural gas and is in abundant supply. And we can use this technology to remove the substances that have traditionally made coal environmentally less desirable.”

NRG also noted that while the proposed IGCC plant met all seven criteria listed in the request for proposals – including use of innovative baseload technology, existing fuel and transmission infrastructure and existing brownfield or industrial sites – the project ranked a distant third.

“The evaluation process concludes that IGCC – the very technology that leaders around the world are holding up as the next generation of power plants – is wrong for Delaware,” said Angoorly.

NRG submitted these comments to the PSC after reviewing the evaluation reports. NRG maintains that the evaluation was not objective because the consultants relied on models for evaluation that were constructed by Delmarva Power, an affiliate of Conectiv, which was one of the bidders. Angoorly said it would have been better for the consultants to construct their own models, so that the review would have been truly independent.

NRG was awarded no points for its proposal to shut down two of its oldest operating units at Indian River, which would cut down on carbon and other emissions.

“The evaluation process has failed to reflect the real cost to Delaware of a large, intermittent energy resource,” said Angoorly. “If Delmarva chooses offshore wind power, additional power will have to be purchased from another source to meet energy needs when the weather is warm, the wind is not blowing, air conditioners are on and electricity demand and costs are at their highest.”

Risks merit emphasis

The first of three public hearings was held Tuesday, March 6, in Dover and drew many Sussex County residents and business owners interested in talking about wind.

It also drew many NRG employees, who were bused to the hearing by the company.

Kim Furtado, holistic health expert and Millsboro resident, said she was encouraged by how much average citizens cared and knew about the power question in Delaware. “After examination of the point system used by this RFP process and the consultants’ report, it is clear to me health factors are not included with enough foresight,” said Furtado.

“I urge you to place appropriate perspective on the health risks of each bid as you analyze the consultants’ reports, and honor your historical opportunity to do so.”

The second hearing, to be held at Delaware Technical & Community College was postponed due to the winter weather on Wednesday, March 7.

It will be held at 7 p.m., Monday, March 12, at Del Tech in Georgetown. The public is welcome to attend.

Toxic Release Inventory 2005 numbers released

Statistics compiled in the Delaware Toxics Release Inventory 2005 indicate a decline in toxic emissions for most big polluters in the state, including the Indian River Power Plant in Millsboro.

“In Delaware, TRI reports for 2005 show that on-site releases reported under TRI were lower by 18 percent when compared to 2004, and they were lower by 29 percent compared to 1998,” said Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) Secretary John Hughes upon the release of the data this week.

“One reason for the decrease in reported on-site release amounts is that the Indian River Power Plant had fewer impurities, including chlorine, in the coal it burned in 2005.”

Indian River Power Plant, owned by NRG Energy, is the biggest polluter in Delaware, but efforts to clean up the plant in recent years are steadily reducing toxic emissions.

In 2004, Indian River reported releasing 241 pounds of mercury into the air and land. That number went down in 2005, when Indian River only released 205 pounds of mercury.

With new regulations from the state and new technology the plant owners plan to install, that number should drop dramatically in the coming years, said NRG officials.

In 2004, Indian River released 130,000 pounds of sulfuric acid into the air. In 2005, that number dropped to 110,000 pounds.

“While there is positive news within the TRI data, there is also some negative news within the program. Recently, the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) weakened the TRI program by enacting a rule allowing more facilities to report on the TRI short Form A that does not report any amounts,” said Hughes. DNREC sent a letter to the EPA opposing the rule change.

“Fuel quality, as well as amount of energy production, can affect the environment,” said Hughes. “We encourage both industry and the public to do their share to help preserve the environment through greater energy efficiency and material selection.”

For more information on TRI data, visit www.serc.delaware.gov/services/search/index.shtml

Contact Rachel Swick at: rswick@capegazette.com