Legalectric

Yes, MISO is at it again, no, not the good MISO as above, but the other MISO, the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.  Once again, they’re asking FERC for termination of a Generation Interconnection Agreement (GIA) for the failed and revoked Goodhue Wind Project, the part with MISO queue number H062 (it’s been assigned Docket No. ER15-254-000).

2014-10-30 Docket No. ER15-___-000-1

This is the docket that never ends, but keeps inching toward the cliff.  For all intents and purposes it’s over, but here’s another housekeeping detail.  It’s permits are revoked, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission has closed the docket… but wait… didn’t they already do this in August?

Not today’s photo, this one from September 11, 2014.

Today at the PUC, the Black Oak and Getty Wind Project was on the agenda. For the full docket, go to PUC SEARCH DOCKETS, and search for 10-1240 (Black Oak) or 11-831 (Getty), and for the Certificate of Need, 11-471.

I’d been retained late last week by project neighbors to address the Commission on their behalf.  They’d been participating throughout, and are frustrated that they’re not being heard, that issues that had been raised by their group, their neighbors, and the DNR were not being heard.  Well, so much for that… Chair Heydinger said that they, the Commission, were not there to discuss layout of the turbines, that it’s only about size, that the notice was about size.  Well, we did get that statement on the record, and I asked again, to be clear on the record, and she repeated that the layout was not at issue, that it’s all in the footprint.  There’s no where to go at the Commission with that kind of statement from the Chair!

Here’s the notice for that agenda item, the issues for Commission decision.

And more importantly, the Applicant filed a Petition For Extension of Certificate of Need on Tuesday, two days before this meeting!  The Commission is making decisions on this siting permit when the Certificate of Need is in limbo?  When the Applicant by their own admission is not going to meet its in-service deadline?

Anyway, layout not at issue today?  Here are the decision items presented to the Commission:

From the Briefing Papers, here is the DNR take on the layout, and note the reference to “previous layouts” because there have been several, and it’s very confusing

Here are DNR comments over the years — the September and October, 2014, comments are regarding this new layout — can you tell if the Commission, Commerce, or anyone paid any attention to the DNR Comments?

DNR_Oct92014_201410-103718-03

DNR_Oct92014_201410-103718-01

DNR_Sept292014_20149-103427-01

DNR_Sept292014_20149-103427-02

DNR_Sept292014_20149-103427-03

DNR_Nov22012_201211-80359-01

DNR_Aug 24 2012_20128-78117-01

DNR_Bat_Feb 22 2013_20132-83757-01

DNR_Feb112012_20112-59451-01

Did the Commission make any attempt to determine whether the DNR concerns were addressed?  Nope.  They just voted.

But this “wasn’t about layout,” so what does it matter…

And worse, knowing of the just filed Petition For Extension of Certificate of Need and that the project would admittedly not be built by the claimed in-service date, they rammed through approval of this new siting arrangement.

I’ve been saying this for so many years, that electric demand is down, down, down, and instead, Xcel Energy (and all the others) have been saying it’s going UP, UP, UP (even though Mikey Bull said years ago that they wouldn’t need power for a while), and they’re applying for and getting Certificates of Need for all these permits for utility infrastructure that are obviously designed to market and sell the surplus, and the Public Utilities pretends to be oblivious (I say “pretends” because I cannot believe they’re that unaware and uninformed.).

This is a must read:

Xcel Compliance Filing_CN-13-606_20149-103251-02

Here’s the short version from Xcel:

2024 is expected to be about what it was back in 2007, the industry peak year.  DOH!  But note this — there’s a “small capacity surplus in 2016.”  DOH!

And given the surplus which we’ve known has been present and looming larger, that’s why they then ask for withdrawal of the Certificate of Need for the Prairie Island uprate because it isn’t needed (and really, that was just what, 80 MW or so?  Or 80 MW x 2 reactors, 160 MW?).  If they don’t need that small uprate, why on earth would they need so much more?

But what do I know…

Hollydale Transmission Line was clearly not needed, and they withdrew that application…

CapX 2020 transmission was based on a 2.49% annual increase in demand, and for Hampton-La Crosse in part supposedly based on Rochester and La Crosse demand numbers, yeah right, we know better, but that was their party line.  Again, DOH, it didn’t add up to needing a big honkin’ 345 kV transmission line stretching from the coal plants in the Dakotas to Madison and further east, but who cares, let’s just build it…

ITC MN/IA 345 kV line — the state said the 161 kV should be sufficient to address transmission deficiencies in the area, but noooooo, DOH, that wouldn’t address the “need” for bulk power transfer (the real desire for the line).

Here’s a bigger picture of the bottom line (I’m accepting this as a more accurate depiction, not necessarily the TRUTH, but close enough for electricity), keeping in mind that these are PROJECTIONS, and that they’re adding a “Coincident Peak adjustment” which should be included in the “peak” calculations):

Notice the only slight reduction in coal capacity, just 19 MW, nuclear stays the same, a 320 MW decrease in gas, a 128 MW reduction in Wind, Hydro, Biomass, which I hope includes garbage burners and the Benson turkey shit plant , slight increase in solar of 18 MW, and Load Management also a slight increase of only 80 MW.  This is Xcel Energy with its business as usual plan, which has to go.  We can do it different, and now is the time.

Will someone explain why we paid so much to uprate Monticello, and paid to rebuild Sherco 3?

From the archives:

500+ give LS Power a piece of their mind

It’s final… that is, the FINAL meeting notice was just issued, one more go round on these draft rules for Certificate of Need (Minn. R. Ch. 7849) and Power Plant Siting Act (siting and routing of utility infrastructure) (Minn. R. Ch. 7850).

We’ve been at this for about a year and a half, maybe more, and to some extent we’re going round and round and round.

Here are the September 2014 drafts, hot off the press:

September Draft 7849

September Draft 7850

Send your comments, meaning SPECIFIC comments, not “THIS SUCKS” but comments on the order of “because of _______, proposed language for 7950.xxxx should be amended to say_______.”  It’s a bit of work, but it’s important, for instance, the Advisory Task Force parts are important because we were just before the PUC on this last week, trying to reinforce that Task Force’s are necessary, despite Commerce efforts to eliminate and/or neuter them.  That despite ALJ orders otherwise, the Final EIS should be in the record BEFORE the Public Hearings and Evidentiary Hearings (just lost a Motion to require this last month).

How can you comment?  The best way is to fire off an email to the Commission’s staff person leading this group:

kate.kahlert@state.mn.us

If you’re up to it, sign up on the PUC’s eDockets, and file your Comment in Docket 12-1246.  If you’d like your comment filed there, and can’t figure it out, please send it to me and I’ll file it for you.  It’s important that these comments be made in a way that the Commission will SEE, in a way that they cannot ignore, when this comes up before them.

The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission is winding up its rulemaking on the Certificate of Need (Minn. R. Ch. 7849) and Siting/Routing (Minn. R. Ch. 7850) chapters.  My clients Goodhue Wind Truth and North Route Group have been participating all along, and their experience with the Certificate of Need and Routing/Siting process has helped inform this record and we sure hope leads to more sensible and workable rules, AND increased public participation.

Now is the time to download and make your comments on what should be included, what’s included that’s important and needs to go forward, and what needs to be reworded.

August 13 Draft 7849

7850 July 8 draft

August 13 Ch. 7850 comparison

Send Comments to:

• kate.kahlert@state.mn.us

• and/or post to the Rulemaking Docket.  To do that go HERE to the eDocket Filing Page, register if you’re not registered (it’s easy and almost instant), and post to Docket 12-1246.

It’s highly likely that the LAST meeting of the PUC’s Rulemaking Advisory Committee will be September 24, 2014 (9:30 a.m. at the PUC, in the basement).

A few things that need work:

• Ch. 7849 & 7850: Need language mirroring statutory language regarding testimony by members of the public UNDER OATH (ALJs have refused to offer people opportunity to testify under oath, and PUC has stated that it makes a difference, “but were those statements made under oath” and if not, less weight.
• Ch. 7849: Advisory Task Forces need language of statute, and membership not limited to “local units of government.”
• Ch. 7849 & 7850: Transcripts available online — need to address this in rules and reporter contracts.
• Ch. 7849: Scoping and Alternatives — compare with Ch. 7850.  Similar process?
• Ch. 7849.1450: When is it Commerce EER & DER
• Ch. 7849 & 7850 – timing should be similar for completeness review, etc.
• Ch. 7850: Public Meeting separate from Scoping Meeting (Public Meeting is to disseminate information, Scoping Meeting is for intake).
• Ch. 7850: Power Plant Siting Act includes “Buy the Farm.”  Need rules regarding Buy the Farm.

Now is the time to review the drafts, above, and send in Comments.  There may be, I hope there are, revisions released prior to the next meeting, but usually it happens just before, and there’s no time.  So here’s where we are now, and Comments would be helpful.