Excelsior Energy has submitted a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) to the Public Utilities Commission for approval and Comments on the procedure for the Docket are due NEXT WEEK! Not much time, lots of reading, so get busy.

It’s not a typical PPA. Here’s the catch — they’ve not agreed with Xcel on a PPA, it’s not a signed PPA. Excelsior is asking the PUC to order it under the terms of the 2003 Prairie Island bill.

(old photo of PUC, Greg Scott on left is gone, that’s a whole ‘nother story)

This is the Mesaba part of the Prairie Island bill and below is the part of Minn. Stat. 216B.1694 that mandates a PPA with Xcel:

(7) shall be entitled to enter into a contract with a public utility that owns a nuclear generation facility in the state to provide 450 megawatts of baseload capacity and energy under a long-term contract, subject to the approval of the terms and conditions of the contract by the commission. The commission may approve, disapprove, amend, or modify the contract in making its public interest determination, taking into consideration the project’s economic development benefits to the state; the use of abundant domestic fuel sources; the stability of the price of the output from the project; the project’s potential to contribute to a transition to hydrogen as a fuel resource; and the emission reductions achieved compared to other solid fuel baseload technologies;

This drives me batty: Why don’t people understand that the fact of a mandate is proof that WE DON’T NEED THE ELECTRICITY? Why don’t people understand that if we have to give them every perk in the book and even make up some new creative ones (I never said Micheletti isn’t shrewd!), so far they’ve gotten $55 million in grants, why, oh why, oh why don’t they understand that this project is not economically viable? Folks, this is transmission engineering, it ain’t rocket science!


Anyway, here’s the link for the PPA Petition and all the exhibits, it’s delightful reading. CLICK HERE.

The PUC is taking PROCEDRUAL comments on this, and comments must be received by 4:30 p.m. Friday, January 20, 2006.

The scope of Comments is narrow, THIS IS IMPORTANT, be on point:

Parties wishing to comment on the appropriate process for the case, including whether it should be set for contested case hearing and what the scope of any such hearing should be, should file written comments with the Commission by 4:30 p.m., Friday, January 20, 2006.

Here’s a hint: Look at the statutory quote above, particularly the bold part, and from there, figure out the scope of the hearing, what all should be included to address the points listed.

PUC staff on this Docket (E-6472/M-05-1993) are Susan Mackenzie (651) 201-2241 or Janet Gonzalez (651) 201-2231.

To look up this docket, go to www.puc.state.mn.us and click on “eDockets” and plug in the “05-1993” in the Docket number spaces.

Here’s the Docket at the agency formerly known as the EQB.

Here comes Mesaba. Do ya think that anyone cares that in the MISO study, G477, only 90MW of all that Mesaba output gets to sink? Go here and search for 477…. think of the transmission upgrades in our future!


Leave a Reply