Legalectric

Can it be?!?! The rulemaking based on the 2005 statutory changes was published in the state register today. TODAY… 2005… SIXTEEN YEARS, and NINE YEARS since this 12-1246 docket was opened. Comments are due by November 17, more on that below.

The Public Utilities Commission did one hell of a job delaying until BILLIONS of CapX 2020, a/k/a CapX 2050 and Grid North Partners and MTEP MVP projects were rammed through. Public interest anyone? Naaaaaaah…

Here it is — First the Notice (60 page service list!), then Statement of Need and Reasonableness (SONAR) and then the proposed rules (yeah, 120+ pages):

Comments are due November 17th:

Here’s the catch — they are planning on putting these through without a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, UNLESS there are at least 25 requests for a hearing — I think that can be arranged. Here are the details, note that they must be “valid” requests, which means explain in short what you want differently in the rules:

ONWARD! SIXTEEN YEARS… UNREAL!

Statkraft may have put wind in, but the Norwegian Supreme Court says otherwise.

Here’s the Court’s press release.

From that press release, it seems that cumulative impacts was the factor that tipped the scales:

And the decision about the Fosen Vind project, IN NORWEGIAN — the court has said it will be translated in its entirety someday:

Why did it take so long for this to arrive here in the U.S., it took many years, and a release of a study pointing out the siting and efficiency advantages. Parking this here for future reference!

Why India’s Canals Could Help Fast-Forward Its Solar-Energy Plans

“Not only do they perform more efficiently, but because we can assume that the generated electricity is utilised in nearby areas, the transmission losses of (normally) 4% and distribution losses of 3% are avoided,” said Sagarkumar Agravat, head of GERMI’s solar research and development.

Apart from this, since the panels are placed on top of water, they are cooled from below, which also increases their efficiency and enhances output by 2.5-5%.

Renewable future: Gujarat govt to set up 100 MW solar power project atop Narmada canal

The ‘solar canals’ making smart use of India’s space

Overall, Gujarat has more than 80,000km of canals meandering through the state. According to Gujarat State Electricity Corporation, if 30% of this were converted to solar, 18,000MW of power could be produced, saving 90,000 acres of land.

This is not a new idea, a demonstration canal project was built in India in 2012:

Gujarat’s solar panels over canals project is a great idea for sustainable energy production

And almost a decade later, in California:

Study looks at covering California’s canals with solar panels

And the study:

Energy and water co-benefits from covering canals with solar panels

And in Popular Science:

Solar panels and water canals could form a real power couple in California

Today, starting at 10:30, the Wisconsin PSC meeting is on, and last on the agenda, #15, is the Cardinal-Hickory Creek transmission line. They will be deciding whether they will interfere in judicial review of their C-HC order and make that moot by rescinding the order, and then, whether they will immediately RE-ORDER as the utilities want. Regulatory capture much?

Tune in early, because last time they ran through 40 items in 5-6 minutes!

FULL AGENDA

To listen to meeting (whatever happened to the webcast?) go HERE: https://apps.psc.wi.gov/APPS/eventscalendar/broadcast/livebroadcast.aspx

To check out all the filings in this docket, go HERE! Some very interesting and highly recommended comments were filed over the last month.

If you’re curious or upset that there is no longer video livestreamed, contact PSC Helpdesk at (608) 267-9195 or email at PSCHelpdesk@wisconsin.gov

The Office of Attorney General’s Residential Utility Division (OAG-RUD) has told the gas utilities in search of recovery for its EXTREME supply expenses during the natural gas price spike in February where to go… or more correctly, where NOT to go — that this should NOT come out of ratepayer pockets — that it’s the on the shareholders. YES! Love it when this happens.

The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission has an “investigation” into the massive gas price spike in February, and how the huge price spike and increased costs should be handled (Many other states’ Commissions have opened an investigation too). Thus far, it’s appeared that the Commission’s intent is to pass it on to the ratepayers and spread it out so it’s not so painful. But not so fast folks! It’s so heartwarming to read a pleading, particularly one filed by Office of Attorney General – Residential Utilities Division, where they say “NO!”

Read it HERE:

There are three ongoing dockets at the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission looking at the “gas crisis” from February.

Now pay attention, because this HUGE gas spike was only 2-3 days:

Some background Legalectric posts:

Texas — it’s a gas — natural gas… DOH! February 17th, 2021

It’s still a GAS! February 28th, 2021

The PUC is looking at a few questions, but what troubling is that the Commission seems to presume that the utilities will recoup from ratepayers! This presumption was evident in previous Commission meetings, and was disturbing, to put it mildly!

There are three dockets trudging along on the same path, and to look at all the filings go to eDockets and look up the dockets:

• 21-135
• 21-138
• 21-235

In May, the Commission issued another Notice of Comment Period and noted these issues, followed by a laundry list of topics for comments:

The AG’s Office minced no words and told them “NO!” For example:

Once more with feeling — ENJOY!

OAG_20217-175863-02

I’m particularly interested in storage, because a client lives above Minnesota’s only gas storage dome, an at least 10 square mile just north of Waseca, with 7 billion c.f. of natural gas stored below. A gas intermediate (not peaking) plant was proposed there, first a very small one, then one 10 times that in MW, and thankfully neither was built.

Knowing about that storage (and too many Minnesotans do not), storage was the focus of my comment in this docket last February:

OAG-RUD did address the failure of the gas utilities to utilize storage:

Bottom line to the OAG-RUD?