Legalectric

News from the Department of Energy — the Excelsior Energy Mesaba Project’s Environmental Impact Statement, which has been delayed and delayed and delayed, is delayed again, not due out until July… yeah, right… we’ve heard that how many times before?

DOE’s June 2009 Key EIS Chart

So folks, don’t hold your breath…

For the full Excelsior Energy Mesaba Project docket, go to www.puc.state.mn.us and then to “eDockets” and then search for 05-1993, and for the siting docket, search for 06-668.

Oh, and I saw that Renee Sass is now doing something equally reprehensible, some biomass scheme… what was it… if I remember, I’ll put in the link. She’s working with a group of ex-NRG people, of course!

THE MESABA PROJECT IS DEAD, DEAD, DEAD!  Coal gasification is not happening.  IGCC ist zu ende!  How many silver stakes through its slimy heart will it take?

Once more with feeling:

IGCC is TOO EXPENSIVE!

IGCC doesn’t provide any significant environmental benefit!

IGCC is not in the public interest!

This is from Charlotte Neigh, Co-Chair of Citizens Against the Mesaba Project, who, having reviewed the recent spin-doctoring of Excelsior Energy, and their tentacle-reach toward Minnesota Municipal Utilities — they’re trying to make it look like they’ve got something they haven’t got:

It is not correct to say that the federal government would back 73 percent of the total cost, or that the federal government has “pledged” $800 million in loan guarantees, or that municipal utilities would have to raise only 27 percent of the project costs to secure ownership of Unit 1 of the Mesaba Project.

Excelsior Energy has not yet been awarded any loan guarantees. It is one of eleven final applicants to share in a pool of $4 billion. Excelsior admits that its negotiations with DOE will continue throughout 2009. DOE stated in October 2007 that projects relying upon a smaller guarantee percentage will be given greater weight. Despite this statement, Excelsior repeatedly misled the media and even the PUC about the status of the loan guarantees, suggesting that they would cover 80 percent of the project costs.

Apparently Excelsior is now seeking 73 percent but this is a long way from becoming reality. A key requirement for qualifying is to have an assurance of revenues to be generated from sale of the product. This means a long-term commitment from a customer to purchase the energy. This is why the failure to achieve a PPA with Xcel Energy is critical. Other obstacles are DOE requirements for: credit assessment without a loan guarantee; approval of environmental and other permits; reduced greenhouse gases; and relative amount of cash contributed by the principals.

Now Excelsior is trying to entice municipal utilities into purchasing ownership interests by suggesting that 100 percent ownership can be obtained by raising 27 percent of the costs. Municipal utilities should carefully assess the likelihood that this amount or any loan guarantees at all will be awarded for the Mesaba Project before issuing bonds to finance such a purchase.

More information and analysis about the federal loan guarantees can be found by scrolling down to the October 8, 2007 entry on the CAMP website: www.camp-site.info/

Charlotte Neigh, Co-Chair
Citizens Against the Mesaba Project

Here’s an example of the bogus spin, from Business North — note she can’t even get the announcement time-frame right… Excelsior announced Mesaba in December, 2001, that’s EIGHT years ago:

No customer for controversial energy project

Excelsior Energy targets municipal PUCs in search for a buyer as key May 1 deadline looms.

4/1/2009
by Beth Bily

About six years ago in the wake of the permanent closing of LTV Steel Mining in Hoyt Lakes, momentum began to develop behind a project concept, one since celebrated and renounced.

That proposed Mesaba Energy project with a price estimated at $2 billion has moved through various phases of public review to a potentially new location further west. Along the way it has become one of the most vigorously debated economic development initiatives proposed for Minnesota’s Iron Range.

Meanwhile, an important deadline looms that could make or break the project. The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission had ordered talks between Mesaba’s parent, Excelsior Energy, and power giant, Twin Cities-based Xcel Energy. The two sides were directed to negotiate a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) for the approximate 600 megawatts of electricity Mesaba’s proposed Unit One would produce. That ordered negotiation period ends on May 1 and there is no evidence an agreement will be reached.

Read the rest of this entry »

Excelsior Energy’s Mesaba Project has been delayed… AGAIN… until June… and when we get closer to June, well, we know what will happen… delay again!

DOE chart showing Mesaba FEIS delay March 13 2009

Thanks to Charlotte Neigh and CAMP for keeping on this!

How can it be?  The IGCC coal gasification project from hell, the zombie that lives on and on and on that even its developers, Excelsior Energy, don’t even dare bring before the PUC tomorrow, this boondoggle got yet another perk from the IRS!  $133.5 in tax credits!  WHATEVER ARE THEY THINKING?

Here’s the press release:

IRS grants Mesaba Project $133.5 million in investment tax credits

Pass the barf bag…

Here we go, deja vu all over again. Excelsior Energy’s Mesaba Project, the IGCC coal gasification project from hell is before the PUC on Thursday, April 10. There are issues in two dockets on the agenda (NOTE LINKS TO BRIEFING PAPERS):

**8. E-6472/CN-07-1640 Excelsior Energy

In the matter of the petition of Excelsior Energy, Inc. and MEP-I LLC for an Order concerning transmission infrastructure under Minn. Stat. 216B.1694

1. Should Excelsior’s petition be dismissed?
2. Should the Commission grant Excelsior Energy’s petition for the Commission to find that all transmission infrastructure associated with the Mesaba Project be exempted from the requirements for a certificate of need under section 216B.243, regardless of whether the Mesaba Project owner or any other transmission owner or person actually permits, owns, constructs, or oversees the construction of the transmission infrastructure associated with the Mesaba Project? (PUC: staff-briefing-papers – Fournier, Gonzalez, Mackenzie)

**9. E-6472/M-05-1993 – Phase II Excelsior Energy

In the matter of a petition by Excelsior Energy Inc. for approval of a Power Purchase Agreement under Minn. Stat 216B.1694, and determination of least cost technology and establishment of a clean energy technology minimum under Minn. Stat. 216B-1693: Should the Commission grant Excelsior’s request for an indefinite stay, pending further order of the Commission, of Phase II proceeding in this docket? (PUC: staff-briefing-papers-stay Fournier, Gonzalez, Mackenzie)

The transmission case is absurd, they’re wanting to claim rights to transmission without needing a Certificate of Need FOR A PROJECT THAT DOESN’T EXIST. How on earth can they claim transmission “associated with the project” when there is no project. How can the discussion get beyond that obvious issue? I filed a Motion to toss it out because it’s just so absurd. That’s the #1 question above. The #2 question goes to the merits of Excelsior’s Petition, which I think is somewhere we shouldn’t even bother going, that Excelsior’s request shouldn’t even get that hint of credibility. So here we go on that… what a waste of time.

The other issue is in the PPA docket, where they’re asking for a indefinite stay. My take? They can withdraw their petition any time they like, if they don’t want a decision. And of course they wouldn’t want a decision on the project, given the disdain for the project shown by the PUC over the last year, sojust withdraw it. Put us out of our misery, please. They can read the writing on the wall.

April 10, at the PUC, 121 – 7th Place E., St. Paul, meeting starts at 9:30 and we’re 8 and 9 on the agenda.

Pack a lunch!