Legalectric

Carleton’s wind turbine goes up (this photo may have been taken by Jonathan Larson, Bruce Anderson or ??? and not moi).

YEAAAAAAAAAA – The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission is going to address the concerns that many groups and individuals have raised about wind turbines, particularly the setbacks required to protect the health and safety of those living nearby.  First, the Minnesota Department of Health release a white paper:

MN Dept of Health – Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines

Now, following up on that, the PUC has issued notice of a comment period to address “PermitConditions on Setbacks and the Minnesota Department of Health Environmental Health Division’s White Paper on Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines.”  And here’s their notice — LOOK AT WHO IS ON THE SERVICE LIST, LOOK AT WHAT SERVICE LISTS THEY USED:

PUC – Notice of Comment Period 7-21-09

PUC – Notice WITH SERVICE LIST

The service list used are the ones for 04-1616, a docket regarding multi-state tracking and trading system for Renewable Energy Credits; and  03-869, a docket for electric utilities subject to Minn. Stat. 216B.1691.  Yup, that really gets it out there, doesn’t it… and the service lists for Bent Tree, Kenyon Wind, Clay County, New Ulm Utilities were NOT used… hence my first comment to be filed!

Overland Comments – Request for Broader Distribution of Notice

It’s very good that  they’ve opened this docket, that they even did that White Paper on Public Health Impacts of wind turbines, BUT that they’re only giving notice of this docket to industry parties is problematic to say the least.  Let’s do it right, PUC!

… but not a day off…

How can a beautiful area like this, worthy of being a National Park, be sandwiched in between coal plants?

Anyway, the water didn’t look too bad, and the doggies had a wonderful time swimming, and the van will have “eau de aqua chein” for months!

and Mississippi’s PSC says… “Ummmmm… not so fast…”

It’s Mississippi Power’s Kemper County IGCC project.  I’ve had a few interesting conversations about this project this morning, and some productive googling time.  Like WOW, can you believe what they’re trying to do?

Mississippi Power Kemper County IGCC page here

Mississippi Power had the audacity to think it could get “construction work in progress” rate recovery, and boost the rates immediately if not sooner to pull the $$$ out of ratepayer pockets to build this boondoggle.  And there’s where the Mississippi PSC comes in, saying, “Ummmmmmm, no, not so fast!” (perhaps it was “STOP — THIEF!!!!”)

For the Mississippi PSC docket on this, go here:

PSC Docket 2009-UA-14  — Mississippi Power IGCC

And there’s DOE involvement – and EIS

Notice of Intent to Prepare EIS

And of course Richard Hargis is on this one too… I’ve fired off an email to him about the status.

Mississippi Power says that they plan to build a plant with CO2 capture and sequestration!?!?!  What a farce — it’s not been done, can’t be done, and even if it could, THAT WOULD REDUCE PLANT OUTPUT BY HOW MUCH?  Give me a break.

Here’s the page they say “CO2 capture and sequestration”

Let’s see, they say $2.2 billion cost, well, that might build about 80% of the plant, add another $440 million to complete it, add another $1 billion OR MORE for capture, and that doesn’t even include CO2 sequestration, transport pipeline and pressurization stations and place to store it, AND THEN THERE’S LIABILITY COVERAGE FOR CO2 RELEASES… and that doesn’t even include the 25-40% loss of efficiency for capture, transport and repressurization and storage FOREVER…  How dare they spout this unadulterated bullshit…

Is this a Conoco Phillips project, or ???  I’ll dig around to see what I can see…  Nope, it says “KBR” and based on some plant in Wilsonville, Alabama… again, I’ll do some digging.

Southern cancels IGCC plant in Florida

Oh my, it’s not a power plant, it’s:

The Power Systems Development Facility in Wilsonville, Alabama

“America’s Advanced Coal Research Center”

Here we go, from McMillan Scott:

Kemper County IGCC Project

READ THAT POWER POINT — it says TWO GASIFIERS!!!  TWO, ONLY TWO!!!  hee hee hee hee, WHERE’S THE SPARE GASIFIER?!?!?!

And here’s a great report in the Jackson Free Press (when was the last time you heard about parasitic load in any newspaper?!?!  Very well done!!!)

PSC Creates New Hurdles for Coal-Burning Plant

Mississippi Power wants the PSC to move faster to approve a new plant.

by Adam Lynch
June 11, 2009

The Mississippi Public Service Commission met last Friday to consider multiple motions submitted by Mississippi Power, the Sierra Club, Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood and others regarding Mississippi Power’s proposed coal-burning plant in Kemper County.

Mississippi Power filed a motion in January for the PSC to fast-forward deliberations on development of the $2.2 billion integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) power plant maintaining that federal money for the program comes with a ticking clock. The 582-megawatt plant will be a combination of lignite coalmine, a coal burner and a gas-powered processor, which dries out the low quality coal pulled from the lignite mine. (The net output of the plant may be reduced by as much as 100 megawatts due to the parasitic power required to dry lignite coal to a usable form.)

“This plant will diversify our fuel sources and will produce energy at lower and more stable costs than any other fossil fuel option,” said Anthony Topazi, Mississippi Power president and chief executive officer in a January statement. “By creating an additional fuel alternative—Mississippi lignite—this project creates significant energy cost reductions for our customers, such that over its life, the energy savings more than offset the cost of building the plant.”

Opposition to the plant, including environmental advocates the Sierra Club and senior citizen representative AARP, claim the plant could raise rate-payers’ utility bills by up to 15 percent.

The PSC denied motions filed by competing power suppliers Magnolia Energy and Entegra Power Group, and the state attorney general motion to suspend their review of Mississippi Power’s request to build the plant, according to The Clarion-Ledger. The denials were only a portion of the whole story, however.
Read the rest of this entry »

Here are Comments filed (that we know of, likely there are more) in the Bent Tree wind project docket at PUC before Steve Mihalchick, ALJ:

Safe Wind in Freeborn County

Safe Wind – Comment – Line by Line Permit Conditions

Safe Wind Comment – Prohibition of Confidentiality Clause in Landowner Contracts

Safe Wind – Exhibit A – Landowner Contract with Confidentiality Clause

Safe Wind – Exhibit B – Landowner Guidelines-Michigan State

Safe Wind – Exhibit B – Windustry Lease Flyer

Safe Wind – Exhibit C – Daily Republic Article

Safe Wind – Exhibit D – North Dakota House bill 1509

Wisconsin Power & Light

Wisconsin Power & Light – Comments – Narrative

Wisconsin Power & Light – Comment – MAPS

Wisconsin Power & Light – Comments – Misc. Exhibits

To see all the Public Hearing Comments and Exhibits, go to www.puc.state.mn.us and click on blue “eDockets” button, then search for dockets 07-1425 and/or 08-573.

A suit has been filed against Xcel regarding emissions from its Comanche 3 plant, under construction.  Here’s the Complaint:

Complaint – Xcel Comanche mercury emissions

Utility toadies are trying to diss the Complaint, oblivious, or too aware of, the hazards of mercury and the damage it does.   In Minnesota, we can’t eat the fish because of the mercury, and the major source is coal plants. Proof of the harmful impacts of mercury is the statement of the Mayor of Hoyt Lakes at a hearing regarding Excelsior Energy’s Mesaba Project, commenting about the expected mercury emissions, “Mercury? We’re used to it here.” Mercury is a neuro-toxin, and causes birth defects, decreased intelligence, etc., and air permits PERMIT mercury emissions, they do nothing to stop them.  There’s no excuse for continuing to spew mercury into the air, our lakes, and us. Kudos to those in CO challenging Xcel.

From today’s STrib:

Suit targets mercury pollution from Colorado plant

Associated Press

DENVER – An environmental group is suing Xcel Energy, saying the utility isn’t doing all it can to cut mercury emissions from a new coal-fired unit at a Pueblo power plant.

WildEarth Guardians says in a federal lawsuit filed Thursday that Xcel is violating federal environmental laws by failing to obtain the approval required by the federal Clean Air Act.

“Xcel Energy is plowing ahead to fire up its smokestack without first ensuring full protection of public health and welfare.That’s not only dangerous, it’s illegal,” said Jeremy Nichols of WildEarth Guardians’ Denver office.

The $1.3 billion unit, the third at the Comanche Generating Station, will produce 750 megawatts of electricity — enough for approximately 750,000 households. Construction is under way.

Xcel and state health officials say the company has a permit that sets limits on the unit’s mercury emissions.

Paul Tourangeau, director of the state Air Pollution Control Division, said plans for the Comanche Station include equipment to significantly reduce mercury pollution and monitor emissions.

Tourangeau said the state extended the deadline to July 29 for Xcel to update information on efforts to reduce mercury emissions. The update is required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Minneapolis-based Xcel took part in negotiations in 2007 that resulted in statewide rules on mercury emissions. Xcel, Colorado’s largest electric utility, and other large power providers agreed to cut emissions 80 percent by 2012.

Colorado’s rules were approved as several states were battling the Bush administration over a mercury standard the states felt was too weak. Last year, a federal appeals court overturned the Bush administration’s approach for mercury reduction that allowed plants with excessive smokestack emissions to buy pollution rights from other plants that foul the air less.

The Obama administration is seeking more stringent controls on mercury.

Mercury is a powerful toxin that accumulates in fish and poses a risk of nerve and brain damage, especially to pregnant women and children.

About 40 percent of the manmade mercury pollution in the United States comes from coal-fired power plants.

Nichols said Xcel’s current permit for the new Pueblo unit will cut mercury emissions by about 65 percent. But experience with other coal-fired plants shows that technology is available to reduce the pollution by up to 95 percent, he added.

“They could be doing a lot better,” Nichols said. “The permit they have now doesn’t cut it.”

*******************************

Here’s another problem from Xcel’s Comanche plants:

Chemical spill killed fish in St. Charles river