Good try, DOE Secretary Perry, but you’re outta here!  Yes, it’s true, a tRump stacked FERC said “NO!” to a proposed rule to subsidize coal and nuclear plants, generation with 90+ days of fuel on hand, outmoded generation plants that are oh-so-suffering while they try to compete in the wholesale “free market” and sinking south fast because costs of production are high and market prices are higher.  I’m shocked, utterly shocked, and very pleasantly surprised!

What did Perry ask for?  Here’s the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:

Secretary Rick Perry’s Letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Bottom line?  Gotta snort, “Now that a quorum has been restored at the Commission, I am confident…” (click for larger version):


That’s SNORT out loud… how’s that workin’ for ya, Secretary Perry?

What he thought was a slam dunk was a 5-0 rejection of preferential “out of market” treatment for certain generators.  Nope, ain’t gonna happen.

Here’s the FERC Order, straight from the horse’s mouth.  I’m most appreciative of the many articles and posts that include the primary document.  It’s crucial to be able to read the FERC Order.  This is REAL NEWS!


There are a lot of people railing and wailing about subsidies these days, but it’s very lopsided, and I’m not hearing the complaints about all the subsidies of coal and nuclear.  If you want to complain about subsidies, slash them across the board.  “Free market” right, the essence of capitalism, right?

Look who’s in the news!

January 5th, 2018

Sustainable: Planners charting Minnesota’s energy future

Yes, we all know that Mike Bull wrote most of the energy law now in place!  But there’s no mention of those many years of work at House Regulated Industries Committee though…

And we all know that there are some big holes and problems with the wind siting statutes, rules, and standards.  What will it take to get some of the problems worked through, like some respectful wind siting standards?  We’re just starting to see, at long last, after years and years of complaints, some Public Utilities Commission action on wind noise issues.

Bent Tree_Noise Monitoring and Monitoring Report_20179-135856-01

Siting will have to be addressed, because despite sound modeling that says “no problem,” there are indeed problems.  Despite shadow flicker modeling that says “no problem,” there are indeed problems.

Preventative siting is long overdue and needs to start NOW!  And what about those already  affected?  “Buy the Farm” for wind?  It’s overdue.  Action after the fact is not the best of options, prevention is always the key, but for those now attempting to live in untenable circumstances, foisted on them by the nuisance moving into their community, and permitted by the Commission, what are the options?

Wind project in southern Minnesota gets pushback

Hey Mikey, how ’bout helping get to some solutions???

There’s been some chatter lately about the financial future of Red Wing if and when the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant closes.

FYI, for those thinking about this, do check out the plan to convert to natural gas, this was 2002, just going into the 2003 session and that Prairie Island bill.

Prairie Island Conversion Appendix B 2002 Resource Plan

There’s also a MISO transmission study:

Prairie Island Replacement Study SS01_Report

There are plans…

On Tuesday, Commerce is having a wind project transmission scoping meeting (MPUC Docket 17-322):

6 p.m. on December 19, 2017

Room 124

 Riverland Community College

Albert Lea, MN

The Albert Lea Tribune printed my Letter to the Editor about the Freeborn Wind Farm transmission scoping meeting:

Letter: Meeting on new wind farm is planned next week

At 6 p.m. Dec. 19 in Room 124 at Riverland Community College, the Minnesota Department of Commerce is holding a public comment and scoping meeting for the transmission line designed to serve the Freeborn Wind project. This is the opportunity for you to raise any questions and concerns about what issues should be investigated and reviewed in the Department of Commerce’s environmental review. This includes all of the things you know about the area, and any alternatives that should be in the mix.

Minnesota has a policy of non-proliferation of transmission corridors, which means that as a matter of law, transmission should be routed using existing corridors, such as transmission lines already in place or road right of way.  This line, instead, is proposed to traverse cross country.  That’s not non-proliferation.

Another problem is that Freeborn Wind developers claim they have land rights to all land needed for this transmission line, and then state that they’ll use eminent domain if they don’t. Well, which is it? And it’s troubling, because only public service corporations have the power of eminent domain, but Freeborn is a LLC, not a public service corporation. To make things more complicated, need has not been demonstrated, and there is no certificate of need. Need is a requirement for use of eminent domain. What’s their basis for saying they can use eminent domain?

This is yet another overreach by the developers — more infrastructure, which would forever change the landscape of this community.  Dec. 19 at Riverland College — now is the time to speak up!

Carol A. Overland

Attorney for Association of Freeborn County Landowners

FAKE NEWS again from CAE

December 15th, 2017

They’re recycling, and not in a good way.  Why is the STrib facilitating this?  Remember this from October?

Center of the American Experiment – Conflatulence!!

Here we go again, this time in the STrib:

The high cost of our failing wind policies

The two primary false arguments:

1) Wind is driving up ratepayer cost (it’s not, it’s the return on capital expenditures).

2) Clean Power Plan and renewable mandates aren’t lowering CO2 and are driving up rates (CPP and mandates only increase “renewables” and don’t cut CO2 production, it’s a percentage change, and using least cost generation.  Only reduction in burning will lower production of CO2).

3) High cost of electricity in Minnesota is connected to wind policies (When compared historically higher cost states like Illinois, yes, Minnesota’s rates are high, but it isn’t related to wind costs, wind is a least cost resource.  It IS related to the shift of electricity from serving a franchise area to a market based system, and the market has spoken. When electricity can be sold for more, and where utilities have transmission build-out from any Point A to any Point B, they will sell to highest bidder.  Higher priced markets will line up to buy our lower cost electricity and utilities will line up to sell it elsewhere rather than sell it for less to us, and we will have to pay the higher price to get electricity here.  That’s how a market works, Econ 1001. With wholesale market deregulated, and transmission lines built, we’ve got defacto deregulation.).

And a minor but very obvious false statement:

And the shortfall in summer wind production is being backstopped primarily by coal-fired electricity.

Coal runs constantly, as does nuclear, well almost, capacity factor of 80+.  But it’s natural gas, with its near-immediate ramping up that backs up wind, if generation is needed.  DOH!  Coal can’t get it up on command.

Why is the STrib printing this crap that is so patently false?

Here’s a good wallpaper to keep running, the MISO LMP map.

Check MISO’s real time LMP prices HERE!

See how Chicago area is cut out? That’s because it’s in PJM.

Check PJM’s real time LMP prices HERE!