Legalectric

How did this happen?  I forgot to post the link for the 2012 Earnings Call transcript from Seeking Alpha!  And it’s a doozy.  You can find the FULL TRANSCRIPT HERE.

Northern States Power – Minnesota estimates a  decrease of demand in Minnesota of about 1.2% (-1.2%) in 2013:

 Andrew M. Weisel – Macquarie Research

A few questions on behalf of Angie Storozynski. First question is you talked quite a bit qualitatively about the load growth expectations, but can you give us the number that you’re expecting for 2013 and in the long term?

Teresa S. Madden – Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President

Sure. I mean, in terms of 2013, maybe if I just talk about it by operating company. We’re — for NSP-Minnesota, we’re looking at a decrease of about 1.2%, NSP-Wisconsin expected to be flat. In Colorado, just under 1%, actually, that’s more about 0.6%. And in Colorado — I mean, excuse me, and in Texas, over — just around 3%, I would say. So overall, we expect it to come in between up to 0.5% on a consolidated basis.

 XEL Earnings Call, January 31, 2013. 

Benjamin G. S. Fowke – Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President

Well, everything — overall, on the residential side, it’s safe to say everything is pretty flat. So then you move to the C&I side, and actually, the strongest C&I growth was in Wisconsin this year, followed by Texas, I think, followed by Colorado, which had small growth. And then we were — we didn’t grow at all in Minnesota for a number of reasons. That said, the economy definitely saw some signs of improvement in 2012. Housing permits were up. Job growth was better than the national average. Unemployment was equal to or better than the national average. So I think the economies are in decent shape across all our jurisdictions. Doesn’t necessarily mean it translates to high sales growth. And that’s consistent with our forecast. I mean, we’re not anticipating that we’re going to see a tremendous rebound in sales, even as the economies start to improve. I mean, I think, that’s our new normal, frankly.

That’s also reflected in their SEC filing showing decreased peak demand, from 9,792 in 2011 to 9,475 in 2012, and a forecast of 9,215 for 2013:

Northern States Power 10-K (2012).  Those are numbers I like to see.

Meanwhile, for example, Xcel has produced “forecasting” for the Hollydale Transmission Project that shows another picture entirely — that’s because the Hollydale application is based on old and outdated forecasts from 2006, the peak demand prior to the 2007 economic crash, and bases its need claim on a forecast of 1% annual growth in peak demand:

Hollydale Application, p. 42-48; 50-57; see also 12, 14, 35, 38; see also Table 2 and Table 3, p. 48-49.  Xcel’s “Hollydale Need Addendum,” dated January 24, 2013, exacerbates this error claiming a 1.8% growth rate and using a 1.8% growth projection for its forecasts.  Michlig Direct, Schedule 2, Hollydale Need Addendum, p. 24.  For the full Hollydale docket, go HERE and search for CoN Docket 12-113 or Routing Docket 11-152.

What would this “Percent Load Growth Over Time” chart look like with a -1.2% and no expected improvement for the foreseeable future?

Here we go again.  Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy (MCEA) and… get this… the Environmental Integrity Project, have teamed up to do a deal with Flint Hills Resources, owned by Koch Industries, our great and good fiends, the Koch Bros.

Why is Environmental Integrity Project, a Washington D.C. entity, even involved in this?

Here’s the deal — download HERE it NOW before it disappears (they took it off the page, but the link still works) — here’s the captured Agreement:

FHRPineBendSettlementAgreementFINALSIGNED

Both are bragging about it in press releases:

EIP-MCEAPressRelease4-16-2013

Here are the parts of the above agreement that are a problem — they have agreed to not object to this project, and they have agreed to SUPPORT the project — does this sound like CapX 2020 all over again?  They have also agreed not to assist others in any way, and to keep these requirements confidential!  It’s enough to make me wonder if there are, as there have been in other deals, other agreements.  Well, here are the specific parts that are so offensive and which are deemed confidential (click each piece for larger view):

The confidentiality provisions are disturbing — that they’re not to disclose the fact that they’re making their supportive comments as a material term of this agreement, and not to disclose these terms to anyone, “including but not limited to local, state or federal governing or regulatory bodies and agencies, and members of the public.”  GOOD GRIEF!

Thanks to the STrib for getting this out in the open:

I am so tired of the wing-nut hype against Obama for his “war against coal.”  Obama is promoting coal — he earned his label as a bigger coal toady than Bush when he revived the FutureGen IGCC project which Bush had the sense to drop (one of his few positive acts, well, on the other hand, maybe that was a passive languishing).  As if Obama’s transmission Rapid Response Team and “fast tracking” seven transmission projects and appointing former ATC attorney Loren Azar to push transmission that facilitates transmission for coal wasn’t enough…  WAR ON COAL?  Give me a break… Why don’t they talk about his promotion of coal gasification?  His taking money from coal interests (he is, after all, from Illinois, a coal state).

Just out, a report from the Congressional Research Service about FutureGen, the coal gasification plant that, no matter how they try, they just can’t get built.

FutureGen_CongressionalResearchSrv_R43028_April2013

From the report, first, a most understated explanation of the impossibilities facing this demonstration plant — that no investor would sink money into IGCC, that PPAs are outrageously cost prohibitive, and 90% capture, while difficult, means nothing if it’s not stored somewhere which is logically and physically impossible at the magnitude of coal plant production:

Congressional interest in CCS technology centers on balancing the competing national interests of fostering  low-cost, domestic sources of energy like coal against mitigating the effects of CO2 emissions in the atmosphere. FutureGen would address these interests by demonstrating CCS technology. Among the challenges to the development of FutureGen 2.0 are rising costs of production, ongoing issues with project development, lack of incentives for investment from the private sector, time constraints, and competition with foreign nations. Remaining challenges to FutureGen’s development include securing private sector funding to meet increasing costs, purchasing the power plant for the project, obtaining permission from DOE to retrofit the plant, performing the retrofit, and then meeting the goal of 90% capture of CO2.

…

Multiple analyses indicate that there will be retirements of coal-fired capacity; however, virtually all analyses agree that coal will continue to play a substantial role in electricity generation for decades.

.
You seem to think you’re Dog’s gift to this earth…

Two things appeared in the inbox at about the same time, the first an announcement of McKnight Foundation and Energy Foundation grants in the Midwest, and from Truthout, a review and interview of Ozzie Zehner, author of Green Illusions: The Dirty Secrets of Clean Energy and the Future of Environmentalism.

First, the massive foundation to “environmental” organizations:

McKnight fights climate change with $25 million in grants

The two-year grants of $20 million to Energy Foundation and $5 million to RE-AMP, a network of nonprofits, extend existing funding partnerships and the philanthropy’s $100 million commitment, announced in 2008, to blunt climate change. The two groups will focus on developing policies and public education to reduce dependence on fossil fuels in Minnesota, the Dakotas, Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Ohio.

And on to Green Illusions: The Dirty Secrets of Clean Energy and the Future of Environmentalism.  GO HERE TO ORDER.

Power Shift Away From Green Illusions

Mainstream environmental groups are exchanging their principles for power at a suspect rate of exchange. It’s not just the alternative energy technologies that rely on fossil fuels. The environmental groups do, too. They rely on funding from the excess wealth accumulated as froth on the top of the fossil fuel economy. But it’s not just money. There are other influences too.

That pretty much sums up what I’ve seen over the last 20 years…

There is an impression that we have a choice between fossil fuels and clean energy technologies such as solar cells and wind turbines. That choice is an illusion. Alternative energy technologies rely on fossil fuels through every stage of their life. Alternative energy technologies rely on fossil fuels for mining operations, fabrication plants, installation, ongoing maintenance and decommissioning. Also, due to the irregular output of wind and solar, these technologies require fossil fuel plants to be running alongside them at all times. Most significantly, alternative energy financing relies on the kind of growth that fossil fuels drive.

…the binary aspect, and looking for a simple “flick the switch” solution when it’s oh-so-complicated.

Today was the day that Comments were due on the Goodhue Wind Project based on the Public Utilities Commission’s very detailed and specific issues to address:

PUC Order in Goodhue Certificate of Need docket

From Goodhue Wind Truth:

GWT Comments

And Goodhue County:

Goodhue County Comment – Revisit C-BED Determination

And here’s a strange one from the project’s Applicant — no comments, just asking for a delayed deadline for Reply Comments:

New Era – Request for Delay of Reply Deadline

Really, this is their request:

Accordingly, in recognition of the value of the time of the Commissioners, the Staff, the Respondents and all parties hereto, New Era respectfully requests that the deadline for reply comments and further action in these matters be delayed pending resolution of the New Era proposals.

30 days?  Sure… right… whatever you say…

And from Commerce:

Commerce DER – Comments

Bottom line from Commerce is (p. 11 of pdf):

At the time the Commission approved a CN for the Project, the Department’s position was that the proposed Project did not meet the CN requirements without its C-BED status. Due to the Company’s own uncertainty and the fact of a current Commission Order on the issue of C-BED status, it would be premature at this time for the Department to address possible changes to the Commission’s Order on the C-BED status of the Project.

A proposed project’s financing, turbine purchase agreements, power purchase contracts, possession of leases, easements and wind rights are not required to be known at the time of a CN determination; therefore, changes in these areas are only required to be considered by the Commission to the extent that they result in the criteria found in Minnesota Rules 7849.0400.

While Minnesota Rules 7849.0400 sets forth the thresholds for Commission recertification of certificates of need , the Commission has broad authority to rescind or amend its past Orders at any time and for any reason.

Let’s just get it over with!