Legalectric

Who pays for this? The deeper I look, the worse it gets. The infrastructure tally is pushing half a billion bucks — that’s a lot in my book. The Commissioners were getting pretty wound up about costs, and rightly so. They know what’s coming, no foreshadowing required. And on July 7, the day after the last Mesaba meeting, they opened up a Comment period! YES!

PUC Notice of 7/7/06 in part:

At its July 6, 2006 agenda meeting, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission considered the acceptance of Excelsior Energy Inc.’s Combined Application for a Site Permit, Transmission Line Route Permit, and Natural Gas Pipeline Permit for its Mesaba Energy Project in Docket No. E-6472/GS-06-668 (link to the Docket). In the course of discussions on the 06-668 Docket, issues were raised that may be more directly addressed in Docket No. E-6472/M-05-1993 which the Commission has already referred for contested case hearing. The Commission directed its staff to bring these issues back before the Commission at a future agenda meeting in the 05-1993 Docket.

Written comments will be accepted on whether the Commission should supplement its April 26, 2006 Notice and Order for Hearing and Order Granting Intervention Petition in the 05-1993 Docket to request that parties specifically address:

• the costs of transmission upgrades and related facilities beyond the substation associated with the Mesaba Energy Project; and
• the costs of other infrastructure investments associated with the Mesaba Energy Project.

Pretty cool, eh? Here’s the bunch that flew over the ether yesterday with clickable links:

MCGP Comment on Cost for Commission.pdf
Local Gov’t Infrastructure Cost Estimate Exhibit A – SEH Public Infrastructure.pdf
TLTG Tables – incremental cost of fixes Exhibit B – TLTG Table 1-H SW MN 345kV.pdf

Excelsior_Comments on Commn Notice Regarding Addl Issues-1.pdf

MP Comments 05-1993-1.pdf

Xcel Energy Comments 05-1993-2.pdf

Remember when a couple weeks ago, I’d sent out Info Requests to Xcel asking what curtailment costs would be for the 675MW of wind that under MISO G519 has to be cut (plus Big Stone II has to be “kept in ND” and MP generation and capacity of A-W is cut too) because curtailment payments would be easy for them to measure… hee hee hee hee. Here’s the G519 report — it’s hilarious! 675MW of wind cut for 600MW of Mesaba! Anyway, Xcel got right with it and even did me one better in what they think should be considered:

• Carbon sequestration: Should the record attempt to identify the cost and infrastructure necessary for carbon sequestration?
• Curtailment: Are there potential curtailment costs with generation so far from NSP load and should these costs be considered along with the infrastructure costs?
• Natural gas capacity andinfrastructure: What are the costs of developing natural gas fuel for the plant as a back-up or alternative fuel, including gas capacity reservation charges as well as infrastructure costs.
• Cost allocatin and assignment: In light of the statutes, who should have the responsibility for the actual infrastructure improvements?
• Hydrogen economy: Are there infrastructure costs associated with using this IGCC to help devleop a Minnesota hydrogen economy?
• Other infrastructure: Are other infrastructure costs for rail, water, management of wastes, fly ash fully considered?

Hey Xcel – you forgot “road!” But isn’t that just the greatest list of costs to be considered that you ever did see!

The Commission will address these issues on Thursday, July 27, the meeting starts at 9:30 but we’re second to last on the agenda. Keep an eye on the Calendar, click here, because Staff Briefing papers will appear before the meeting.

Now let’s see if this upload works now!