Legalectric

The Public Utilities Commission has been trying to get information out of “New Era Wind Farm, LLC” about the Goodhue Wind Project.  Search Legalectric for “Goodhue” and you’ll find a LOT about it.

Here are the latest PUC Information Requests:

PUC’s Information Request, October 11, 2012

And today, Peter Mastic … hmmmmmm… in the summer, would we call him “Tan Mastic” and is that the key to how he it all holds together?

Anyway, Peter Mastic filed responses last week, probably from his new Goodhue, Minnesota office…

… and the PUC eFiled them today:

New Era Response to PUC Information Requests – Nov 19 2012

Some of the responses are VERRRRRRRRRRY INTERESTING…

Here’s the final response and the most interesting one, raising Force d’ Manure (click for larger view, or download the info request responses and scroll down to the end):

December, 2011, that’s when Trishe Wind bought National Wind, and Trishe didn’t take on the Goodhue Wind project, wanted nothing to do with it.  So when exactly did that happen?  Likely in December, 2011, when Trishe Wind bought National Wind, and if so, well, that was nearly a year ago.  We’d just found out about Trishe in what, September?  And we find out about this Force de Manure notice now and the notice was given to Xcel Energy last December?  Ummmmm… I’d think this is something the Commission should have received notice on… and the public too, of course.

I’m going to print these out and read them as I make some bread — the oven’s fixed now and I’m not about to start buying bread anytime soon!

And for those looking to remove Mastic, here’s just the folks to do it:

Flooring Authority, Inc – Surface Preparation

They note that “When flooring is removed often there is one or many layers of “sticky stuff” aka…mastic, that needs to be removed.  Complete floor mastic removal is always best.”  Mastic removal?  OK, let’s get to it!

Today Comments were due on Minnesota Power’s Great Northern Transmission Line.  I’m sorry, but I just can’t bring myself to call a transmission line “Great” and that’s just how it is…  Anyway, Minnesota Power is getting ready to file a Certificate of Need application, this is the lead up, what they have to do to provide notice to people when they actually file.  So here’s their draft plan:

Minnesota Power’s Notice Plan for Great Northern Transmission Line

Comments on that plan were due today.  Here’s what I filed:

Overland’s Notice Plan Comments, November 19, 2012

Here’s what Commerce filed earlier today:

MOES Comment – GNTL Notice Plan

Haven’t gotten word on any others.

To keep an eye on what’s going on in this docket, go HERE and search for docket 12-1163.

A little sidebar here — while looking for a logo, some things popped out — did you know that Minnesota Power sponsors, with the Lignite Energy Council, a “Teachers Seminar” on coal?  It’s the only teacher workshop listed, though there are multiple listings under “School Programs” and “Educational Materials.”

Lignite Education Seminar

OH MY!  Check their “Electricity 101” pdf:

Electricity 101

p. 7:

1929—Stock market crash revealed that many holding companies were over-leveraged

–As a result, federal and state governments strengthened utility regulation.

There are some interesting charts and graphs in Electricity 101 that are interesting and that I’d like to see updated.  Hear that, MP!?!?!

But we knew that…

PJM State of the Market Report 3Q 2012

Here’s the part I’m most interested, demand is DOWN, from the intro, summarizing p. 23 of the report linked above:

The PJM system peak load for the first nine months of 2012 was 154,344
MW, which was 3,672 MW, or 2.3 percent, lower than the PJM peak
load for the first nine months of 2011.  The DEOK Transmission Zone
accounted for 5,360 MW in the peak hour of the first nine months of
2012. The peak load in 2012 excluding the DEOK Transmission Zone was
148,984 MW, a decrease of 9,032 MW, or 5.7 percent, from the peak load
for the first nine months 2011. (See page 23)

2.3%, 5.7%, DUH!  Demand is DOWN!  Here’s the specifics:

I love it when that happens…

Xcel is now admitting they don’t need the Prairie Island uprate:

Xcel’s Supplemental Filing

It’s something even they can’t ignore:

We note that, in light of the total system costs, $10 million PVRR is not a meaningful difference. In essence, before considering risk factors, the Strategist model does not draw a clear distinction between the two scenarios, thus no longer identifies a clear benefit associated with implementation of the uprates.

They go on and state it more directly:

Our updated plan agreed with the Department of Commerce’s recommendation of a 400 to 600 MW need, which would accommodate a decision to not proceed with the uprates.

…

As a result, we conclude that a decision not to proceed with the uprates would in no way pose risk to customers of an insufficient supply to meet their needs.

…

At this point, we believe it is reasonable to conclude that further investment in the project will not benefit our customers.

…

Based on these considerations, we conclude that the risks of the project outweigh the expected benefits, and customers would be better off if this project did not proceed.

I’m not sure that’s clear enough for the PUC, it’s on the agenda and Staff isn’t clear in their recommendation.  Alan and I fired this off Tuesday:

Overland Muller Comment – 10-23-12

To access the uprate docket, GO HERE and plug in dockets 08-509 and 08-510.  Note they’re “08” dockets, which was after the electric crash, but before they admitted demand was down and before we had such a good record of demand going down, staying down, down, down.

The  Hyperion project, an 800 pound gorilla, an oil refinery PLUS a coal gasification (IGCC) plant (it morphed quite a bit over the years), proposed for agricultural land west of Sioux Falls, South Dakota, has been looming for a long time, but there’s evidence that the stakes through it’s slimy heart are having an impact.

In the Argus Leader:

Hyperion declines to renew options with Union County landowners

The stake in Hyperion’s slimy heart is that there’s no money:

“I don’t know why people are opposing Hyperion, but it’s not going to be built because they’ll never get financing,” he said. “Nobody’s going to put up that money. … Just because you have the piece of land and a state that will let you put it there doesn’t mean it makes sense.”

There’s no money to build Hyperion, no investors, another vaperware project sounding a lot like the AWA Goodhue wind project here in Goodhue Count, or Excelsior Energy’s Mesaba Project, coal gasification on the Iron Range.  It’s the lack of money that’s the real news:

Industry analysts question Hyperion

Two industry analysts are casting doubt on the viability of the proposed Hyperion oil refinery in Union County, though a company spokesman questioned the impartiality of their criticisms.

In an Aug. 20 article in the trade paper Platts Oilgram News, Malcom Turner, chairman of the firm Turner, Mason and Co. of Dallas, said financing will continue to be a problem for large projects such as Hyperion.

“Nobody would finance it,” he told Platts. “It would take forever to build.”

Dallas-based Hyperion Refining has proposed to build a $10 billion refinery in Union County to process 400,000 barrels of heavy Canadian crude daily into various refined products. The company first applied for a Prevention of Significant Deterioration air quality permit from the state — the first of about a dozen permits it needs to collect before it can start up — in 2007.

In an interview with the Argus Leader, Turner said South Dakota is not a good fit for a large refinery because the Midwestern market won’t support any additional refined product.

“I don’t know why people are opposing Hyperion, but it’s not going to be built because they’ll never get financing,” he said. “Nobody’s going to put up that money. … Just because you have the piece of land and a state that will let you put it there doesn’t mean it makes sense.”

Via email, Hyperion spokesman Eric Williams disputed Turner’s assessment, saying that there is plenty of demand for refined product in the Midwest and that existing refining capacity is “old, outdated and inefficient.”

“There are many people in the investment community who recognize that fact and see the opportunity for building a new refinery that’s state-of-the-art both in terms of the environment and operating efficiency,” he wrote.

He also said siting the refinery in Union County would reduce pipeline tariffs as compared with those paid by Gulf refineries to ship refined products to the Midwest.

“From the beginning we’ve had doubters, and there are certainly some in the industry who don’t want to see our project built,” he wrote. “But we’ve invested scores of millions of dollars and are in it for the long haul.”

Rough road

The Platts article also quoted a friend of Turner’s, Glenn McGinnis, an industry consultant and CEO of Arizona Clean Fuels Yuma, which has had a $4.5 billion refinery in the works since the late 1990s.

“It doesn’t make sense to build a monster refinery on the prairie” because the area lacks the infrastructure to connect refined products to end markets, McGinnis told Platts.

Speaking Monday to the Argus Leader, McGinnis said his own experience trying to get a refinery financed and permitted are an indication that Hyperion has a tough road ahead.

“The technology selection is good, the opportunity for providing jobs and financial benefits is good and likely supported by a lot of folks,” he said of Hyperion’s proposal. “But to me, the infrastructure issues, and the ability to finance the project, are really going to make it difficult.”

Plans for his own refinery are tentatively on hold, McGinnis said, though it has an active air quality permit from the state. That project would pipe its crude from Mexico.

Part of the problem is that Arizona Clean Fuels, like other downstream projects, has had trouble securing financing in a down economy, despite not having drawn legal challenges as Hyperion has, McGinnis said.

The Sierra Club, Save Union County and Citizens Opposed to Oil Pollution have challenged Hyperion’s PSD air quality permit, a case that will be heard by the South Dakota Supreme Court Oct. 3 in Sioux Falls.

Williams, for his part, said McGinnis and Turner lack credibility because they are Hyperion’s competitors: McGinnis as CEO of a company that’s also trying to build a refinery, and Turner as an analyst who represents competing refiners.

“We’re not terribly concerned about what analysts say about our financing,” Williams said. “As a private company we don’t discuss those details. It’s like me requesting that upper management at the Argus to release their paystubs.”

Building pipeline

Phillips also told Platts the company recently spoke with the Canadian pipeline companies TransCanada and Enbridge about building a pipeline to carry crude from Hardisty, Alberta, to the refinery. Or Hyperion might build the line itself.

Williams declined to discuss details of these discussions “given the proprietary nature of these talks.”

TransCanada spokesman Shawn Howard said via email that the company is “always looking for opportunities to connect supply to markets” but that he could not discuss specific proposals.

An Enbridge spokeswoman did not return messages.