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!

Leave a Reply