20161006_0934531

It was a long, long day. Bottom line? Based on the record, and based on acknowledgement of Xcel’s peak demand history, we can shut down Sherco 1 & 2 now without missing it, and by 2025 or so, shut down Prairie Island and not have to pay for significant rehab to keep it running.

Here is the PUC webcast:

 

Here is my handout, noting the 700-788MW overstatement of peak demand forecast.

Legalectric_Handout_IRP

peakdemand_2002-2016

If you start with Xcel’s 2015 actual peak demand, and extrapolate using the 0.3% annual increase out to 2030, here’s what it looks like (click for larger view):
forecast_adjusted

These are the charts that they’re using, starting with inflated forecasts of 9,409 and 9,442MW for 2016, note how far off the resulting 2030 “forecast” is — it’s 800 – 1,234 MW off!
staffp12

With the “forecast” that much off, it’s as absurd as the CapX 2020 2.49% annual increase. Staff questioned the forecasts in the Briefing Papers, Commissioner Lange raised forecasts right off the bat, and Commissioner Schuerger claimed it was at least 300 MW off (don’t know where that 300 MW came from). These discrepancies havce been noted, and they should dig deeper, because the numbers used by Xcel do not add up. Were they lying in the SEC filings or are they lying now? Why isn’t Commerce challenging this, given admissions of the existing surplus? This forecast overstatement, plus admission of under-utilization of grid (meaning grid has been overbuilt, DOH, CapX 2020 and MVP projects are not “needed” in any sense) raises a few issues:

1) This misrepresentation is NOW equivalent to at least one coal plant, and by the end of 2030, or by the time presumed for shut down of Sherco 1 and 2, it’s much more than that.

2) This misrepresentation avoids consideration of shut down of Sherco 1 & 2 NOW, and shutdown of Prairie Island at the 2024-2026 time frame, and avoidance of $600-900 million in capital costs, or more, for Prairie Island.

3) This misrepresentation circumvents discussion of the admitted surplus now existing, even Dr. Rakow admitted to that at least twice in Thursday’s discussion. Where there is surplus, they can sell it elsewhere, and that is, after all, the purpose of CapX 2020 and MVP transmission.

Got that? We can shut down Sherco 1 & 2 now without missing it, and by 2025 or so, shut down Prairie Island and not have to pay for significant rehab to keep it running. This is not rocket science. It’s as simple as using actual peak demand as a starting point and not making up numbers as they have been doing.

Decommission Genoa nuclear?

September 17th, 2016

20150412_160822_resized

There’s a NRC meeting on Tuesday about the “License Termination Plan” coming up:

6-8 p.m. on Tuesday, September 20, 2016

Courtyard Mariott

La Crosse Downtown/Mississippi Riverfront

500 Front St. South, La Crosse, WI 

Now think about it… why tear down what’s left of the Genoa plant?  So asks George Nygaard!  Shouldn’t this be a historical site?

Closed in 1987, Genoa nuke plant preparing for demo

My father worked on the conventional side of the Elk River Allis nuclear plant, a demonstration project way back when.  That was decommissioned back in the early 70s and is now a garbage burner.  When the demonstration project was completed, and they tried to sell it, no local utility wanted it!  Good call!  Genoa was another matter, and Dairyland bought it for $1.  Still not a great deal, because here we are now spending millions on decommissioning.  How much?  See below… they’re not telling.

Here’s the NRC page, with zero links:

La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor

Where’s the info on this?  Here’s the press release, does it say why are we having a meeting?

NRC to Discuss La Crosse License Termination Plan…

Well, it looks like it’s to discuss the “License Termination Plan” according to their notice. But what’s to comment on?  Why is there no link?  After much digging, FOUND IT!  From the NRC’s page:

La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor, License Amendment Request for the License Termination Plan.

Accession Number: ML16200A095

Date Released: Wednesday, July 27, 2016

Package Contents

Look at this — how do we comment on redactions?

costs_redacted

costbyactivity

Some other docs:

Decommissioning Funding Plan for Independent Spent Fuel

Decommissioning & decontamination cost study update

Alabama’s leaking gas pipeline

September 16th, 2016

inline-plugging-deviceInline plugging device used to isolate pipeline segment for recovery efforts.

Gas leaking in Alabama…

Alabama, Georgia declare state of emergency after pipeline spill

Pipeline leak spilled an estimated 250,000 gallons of gasoline

Here’s where to find updates from the pipeline company:

https://helena.colonialresponse.com/

It’s a long, long pipeline:

colpipe-map-300x217jpg-5aaf9c17666f5b96

Note the focus here in the STrib report, on price, not the mess:

Pipeline shutdown in Alabama could send gas prices higher

But that’s how it is everywhere:

Gasoline shortages, price hikes coming to East Coast after pipeline leak

Even though admittedly the pipeline is not “fixed” as of this writing:

Atlanta gas prices rising today, Bama pipeline not fixed

It’s owned by Colonial Pipeline, which is owned by ???

Colonial Pipeline investigating gasoline leak in Shelby County

And it’s the BIGGEST gas pipeline?

Leak From Biggest U.S. Gasoline Pipe Sparks ‘Red Alert’

Here’s an interesting post about Alabama natural gas pipeline explosions and permitting adventures:

A 36 inch pipeline blews (sic) up in Alabama

applicationroute

Just in (well, it came in a while ago, but I was being tortured at the U of M Dental Clinic):

Minnkota Request for Withdrawal of Clearbrook-Clearbrook West 115kV Transmission Line  20169-124828-01

YES!!  Now, a quick Comment for the record, essentially a thank you note, PUC staff Briefing Papers, a Commission meeting, and Clearbrook is DONE!

withdraw

Today was Deadline #1 for Comments on NDPC’s Petition for Withdrawal of the Sandpiper pipeline Certificate of Need and Route applications.  Here’s what was filed:

Sandpiper_Landowner Comments_Xmsn

Yup, that’s it.  My Sandpiper transmission clients weighed in.  I’ve been watching the docket, watching the inbox for service…. NO other comments, nothing, nada…

Just get to it.  Quick – take a few minutes and send a missive to the Public Utilities Commission encouraging them to allow Enbridge to withdraw their application for the Sandpiper pipeline WITH PREJUDICE so that they can’t refile it again.  Send to:

Daniel P. Wolf, Executive Secretary  (dan.wolf@state.mn.us)                        Minnesota Public Utilities Commission                                                           121 Seventh Place East, Suite 350                                                                    Saint Paul, MN  55101-2147

Ann O’Reilly and James La Fave, Administrative Law Judges
Office of Administrative Hearings
600 North Robert Street
P.O. Box 64620
St. Paul, MN 55164-0620

But it doesn’t end there, with zip comments… it gets weirder.  I’d saw there was no notice from the PUC about a comment period, nothing.  Here’s what they did with Hollydale, Notice, and there was a comment period and reply comments!  In that docket, Xcel Energy filed to withdraw its Hollydale applications on December 10, 2013, and this notice was issued on January 10, 2014:

20141-95340-02 Notice of Comment Period

Here’s what we got:

topics

And when I asked:

cao2puc

Here’s the response:

puc2cao

Oh my… what do I do with that?  Guess I write a post about it!!!

withdraw