MISO’s MTEP 17 Draft!

August 8th, 2017

No, wait, that’s not right…

Yeah, that’s it… Midcontinent Independent System Operator, MISO, has released the draft MISO Transmission Expansion Planning report, or MTEP 17.  From the MISO MTEP17 page, here are the live links:

MTEP17 Reports

Full Report
Executive Summary
Book 1 – Transmission Studies
Book 2 – Resource Adequacy
Book 3 – Policy Landscape
Book 4 – Regional Energy Information
Appendix AB
Appendix D1 Central
Appendix D1 East
Appendix D1 South
Appendix D1 West
Appendix D2 Projects In models Documentation
E1 Reliability Planning Methodology
Appendix E2 EGEAS Assumptions
MTEP17 Appendix A1 A2 A3
MTEP17 Appendix F Substantive Comments

Also from MISO’s MTEP page:

Transmission Planning Status Reports

MTEP17 Futures Summary

Generation Retirement Sensitivity Analysis – Scope
Generation Retirement Sensitivity Analysis – Scope Appendix 1

And the most important one that shows what they’re up to in transmission planning, the link, and just in case it disappears, the spreadsheet:

MTEP17 Active Project List 

Copy of MTEP Active Project List

And supposedly they’re taking comments from “stakeholders,” so says the MISO email announcement:

Please send any feedback on this report to David Lucian (dlucian@misoenergy.org) by August 25, 2017.  Stakeholders will have an additional opportunity to provide feedback when the second draft of MTEP17 is posted on September 18, 2017.  A list of report milestones is provided below.

 

Item MTEP17
Schedule
MISO posts first draft for external review August 10
Stakeholder review and comments August 25
MISO posts 2nd draft Sept 18
MISO System Planning Committee Sept 19
PAC – Report Review Sept 27
Substantive Comments Deadline Oct 2
PAC – Report update Oct 18
PAC motion Oct 18
MISO System Planning Committee – November Nov 16
MISO Board of Directors meeting Dec 7

 

What do the Benson turkey shit burning plant, the HERC garbage burner, and a couple other plants have in common?  The have Power Purchase Agreements that Xcel wants to get out of or modify in its favor.  Funny how that works.  These things were bad from the get to, make no economic sense except to those selling what little power is generated.  Now, it appears that Xcel Energy (and therefore us, Xcel’s customers), is tired of being screwed and are not going to take it anymore!

What’s Xcel Energy’s view of these Petitions?  To save money, of course, and it looks to be about $53.1 million annually.

These Petitions were filed just now by Xcel Energy:

17-xxxx+Initial+Filing+Benson+063017+NSP+PUBLIC

With a $20 million kicker to the City of Benson, here’s what Xcel Energy plans to do, including demolition of the plant:

Next up?  The Hennepin Energy Recovery Center (HERC) garbage burner:

HERC+PPA+Petition+PUBLIC

The plan for HERC?  Cut the PPA amount, by how much, we don’t know, it’s all “PROTECTED DATA” and top secret:

What does that mean for Hennepin County?  The HERC garbage burner has never been a money maker, and has always been a money loser.  So now what?  Does it make any sense to keep it open, or is it time to shut it down?  Allow me to rephrase… is there any reason to keep it open?  Seems like this is a convenient time to close it.  Neighbors Against The Burner, are you listening?

Next up?  Pine Bend, another “waste-to-energy” garbage burner, and another PPA that Xcel Energy wants to terminate:

Pine+Bend+PPA+Petition+PUBLIC

And about the Sherco site and moving part of Northern Metals operation to the Sherco site, and that’s not all they want to do:

17-xxxx+Sherco+Land+Sale+Petition+NSP+063017

The point of this Sherco Petition?

And last but not least, a sale of assets to Flint Hills:

17-xxxx+Inver+Hills+Asset+Sale+Petition+063017

 

 

For years, for decades, I’ve been going on and on about the inefficiency of transmission, the electric system, and line losses ad nauseum.  Y’all know that, if you’ve been paying attention.  And here we are, back to discussing inefficiency in the electric system.

The SW MN 345 kV Transmission Lines (PUC Docket 01-1958) turned on line losses.  After that close call, line losses were calculated and considered on a very different model, framing it as a percentage of THE ENTIRE EASTERN INTERCONNECT.  So what’s a little loss of 0.1%, who cares… well, as a part of THE ENTIRE EASTERN INTERCONNECT, it adds up fast.  Let me make this perfectly clear, transmission line loss is substantial.  It’s particularly substantial when you’re talking about using transmission to ship lower capacity energy, like wind and solar.  If you have long, hundreds of miles long, transmission lines, there’s not much, if any, of that energy that would find its way to its destination.

This is not news.  My engineer, Art Hughes, PhD EE, taught me so much about power engineering.  It was a struggle to keep up with him, but the knowledge I gained working with him opened doors in challenging utility infrastructure projects.  Here he is at a public hearing in Peosta, Iowa,  telling people a thing or two about transmission:
Art Hughes filed testimony in the SW MN 345 kV Transmission Lines case, PUC Docket 01-1958) — search the testimony for “losses” upon which this case turned, and was erroneously granted a Certificate of Need, and later a Routing Permit:
Oh well.   It’s long done, this transmission project and many others, the horse is out of the barn, dead, and beaten to a pulp.  There’s been a massive transmission build-out, and now they want to build yet another “transmission overlay.”  Great idea, MISO, Xcel, and all of you dreaming of this revenue generation via capital investment and ROI scheme.
Anyway, back to today’s email.

There’s a “Stakeholder Meeting” coming up:

Register here

Those words, “Stakeholder Meeting” get my attention, because just who is a stakeholder, who decides.  I don’t recall getting this email, but thankfully a client who is regarded as a “Stakeholder” did, so I’ve signed up and will spend the time to show up and raise a few points.

Minnesota Department of Commerce Division of Energy Resources Header


Upcoming Stakeholder Meeting: Opportunities and Barriers to Utility Infrastructure Efficiency

Friday, July 28th from 8:30 a.m. – 12:30  p.m.

Wilder Center – 451 Lexington Pkwy. N, Saint Paul, MN 55104

Register for this free public meeting

Meeting Details

An estimated 12-15% of the nation’s electricity production is consumed by generation auxiliary loads, transmission and distribution losses, and substation consumption. As such, there is significant potential to increase utility infrastructure efficiency by decreasing conversion losses, improving plant operations, and mitigating transmission and distribution losses throughout Minnesota’s electric grid.

The Minnesota Department of Commerce invites you to participate in a stakeholder meeting to explore opportunities and barriers to utility infrastructure efficiency projects, and to begin developing a framework to improve the overall generation, transmission, and distribution efficiency of Minnesota’s electric system.

Meeting attendees will hear from national and local experts and gain insight into how existing, new, and on-the-horizon utility infrastructure technologies can increase system efficiency, including:

  • A presentation by the Electric Power Research Institute, highlighting innovative utility infrastructure efficiency projects and approaches from around the country.
  • A presentation from Minnkota Power Cooperative, discussing lessons learned from implementing infrastructure efficiency projects in Minnesota.
  • Information about next steps in the stakeholder engagement process, including a deeper-dive examination of supply-side efficiency policy issues.

Register here

Listening to him speak is painful.  This idiot is talking about “Clean Coal.”   Claims that the Paris Accord stops development of “Clean Coal.”  DOH, IT’S THE ECONOMY STUPID!

He’s again blathering about 3-4% growth.  Delusional.

The Paris Accord hamstrings America?  The Paris Accord limits the American economy?

His points in the speech are insane.  A load of covfefe!

Here are tRumpe’s talking points handed out prior to today’s announcement:

Paris Accord_Talkers

At long last, the final round of Comments on the 5+ year long rulemaking have been filed.  A five year long process to enact the changes consistent with legislation passed in 2005, 12 years ago.  WHAT!?!?!  Yes, that’s how long it’s taken.  These are rules based on the Minnesota statutes for Certificate of Need (Minn. Stat. 216B.243) and the “Power Plant Siting Act” (Minn. Stat. Ch. 216E), which is transmission routing and power plant siting.

Here are the Reply Comments, and note there are very few:

Public Intervenors – No CapX 2020, U-CAN, North Route Group & Goodhue Wind Truth – FINAL_May 31 2017

McNamasra GWT Reply_20175-132415-01

Commerce EERA Reply_20175-132345-01

ITC Midwest_Reply_20175-132421-02

OtterTail Power_Reply_20175-132275-01

Xcel Energy_Reply_20175-132417-01

Next step — on the agenda at a future Public Utilities Commission meeting, where they’ll discuss changes, hopefully we’ll have oral argument of the parties and comments from the public, and then the rules are formally released to the public for public comment, a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, and then back to the Commission for approval.  Probably it will be August… given the public comment period and hearing, this will be at least a SIX YEAR PROCESS!