Pawlenty’s minion did what?

January 8th, 2007


Whatever is he thinking? We in the Excelsior Mesaba Project docket at the PUC have all received a “Policy Statement” from one of the Gov’s boys, Ed Garvey, Deputy Commissioner — Energy and Telecommunications. It’s weird, coming in not as part of the brief, but separately, as if they decided to submit additional testimony long after the record closed on December 22, 2006. HUH? What is Ed Garvey thinking???

Here it is:

Policy Statement of Ed Garvey
This case takes so many bizarre turns that I just don’t know what to say, other than it’s an attempt to pull the Gov’s fat out of the fire on this and they hope that etiher Excelsior or Xcel capitualtes. Not likely! Who would buy into a goofy deal like this? And to suggest something like this publicly?????

Note that in suggesting “modifications,” he suggests that the price of the PPA include COSTS (remember that word) of transmission and sequestration and it be a “fixed all-inclusive” price of no more than $110/MWh over the life of the contract, and that the PPA be limited to 450MW. Well, according to Amit’s testimony, also of Commerce, he found that the price just a tad bit more than $110/MWh — like another 50-70%!
From the Commerce Brief, p. 28 [table includes only total, TRADE SECRET data omitted]:

Commerce Initial Brief

Table 3: Cost (Price) Comparison Including Transmission,
Emission and Sequestration Costs
West Site (603 MW) $152.35
East Site (598 MW) $161.22
West Site (450 MW) $177.18
East Site (450 MW) $187.07
Big Stone II Supercritical $75.76
Sherco 4 Supercritical $75.33
So if these are the Commerce estimates of per MWh costs including transmission and sequestration, and I know the transmission and sequestration costs they propose are way low, why on earth is he proposing $110/MWh?? How is this anything but a waste of time?
note that this addressess COST, but where’s the requirement that CO2 actually be captured and sequestered? What he’s proposing is TRADE, no decrease in emission rate, without saying the word. There is no requirement in the PPA for capture and sequestration, and there is nothing here that he suggests other than making us ratepayers pay for it.
“While Mesaba deserves a cost premium to reflect attributes such as carbon capture..” HUH? What attribute of carbon capture is he talking about? He notes that “$110 per MWh is twice the cost that the legislature set for energy from a biomass facility… and higher cost by roughly one-third more than the Department’s estimates for an alternative facility.” HUH?
Great idea… just great…
Why can’t these guys just say NO! Mesaba has had it’s chance, now we’re done, thank you very much… don’t let the screen door hit you…
Or as the Department of Commerce brief concludes, Mesaba is not likely to be a least cost resource nor is it in the public interest.

One Response to “Pawlenty’s minion did what?”

  1. Mike Bull Says:

Leave a Reply