Legalectric

And that’s a good thing, because their SEC filings show that demand is down from 2007-2007, as it is everywhere.  It’s looking like utilities are unable to sustain their drive for long distance market dispatch, and if this trend is the reality, and their stock continues to be in the toilet, they can’t build their transmission dream — this is good news!  Chalk up one for the economic depression!

All of us participating in the Delmarva Power IRP have to make sure the PSC knows about the tanked market, after all, they’re addressing how Delmarva Power will fulfill its demand, and for sure we don’t need new generation (need different generation, to be sure) or any transmission.  As to needing different generation, it’s particularly important at this time to attach a requirement to SHUT DOWN FOSSIL FUEL to any RES.  Without that, they’ll just sell it elsewhere, and we won’t gain anything.

Here’s one example of how the economy can have an impact on electric infrastructure and market. Hot off the press — PEPCO may not be selling stock to finance projects, and the biggest project they’re looking at is the much-detested Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway, electric transmission known as the MAPP line.

And remember, not that long ago, PJM cancelled the part from Indian River to Salem, NJ, at the Salem & Hope Creek nuclear plants.  Here’s what it looks like now, supposedly:

HA!  THEIR MAPS DON’T EVEN REFLECT THAT CHANGE!!

MAPP – PEPCO-PJM Press Release May 19, 2009

The Press Release says:

According to Gausman, PJM has also reviewed the need for the section of the line that would run from Delmarva Power’s Indian River substation near Millsboro, Del., to Salem, N.J., and has decided to move this portion of the line into its “continuing study” category. This means that the reconfigured MAPP line will now extend approximately 150 miles from northern Virginia, across southern Maryland and the Chesapeake Bay, and terminate at Indian River. The change would likely reduce the total project cost from $1.4 billion to $1.2 billion.

(Emphasis added).  Hee hee hee hee hee — “… terminate at Indian River.”  No Indian River to Salem, NJ section.  Cutting a section out is just one more step to tanking the project.  What’s the point of a radial line to Indian River?  Some would say that “hey, there’s transmission there, it’s not a radial line,” but there’s NOT transmission there to facilitate the bulk power transfers coming in on a 500kV line.  The system there is comparatively VERY low voltage.  Others would note that the Indian River plant has two units shutting down, but folks, they’re the smallest units, totalling about 150MW or so, that will not make a big electrical difference, though it has a significant impact on our ability to breathe the air in southern Delaware!  Taking the small Indian River units most probably means that Bluewater Wind should have no problem interconnecting — lets see the interconnection studies with Indian River units off line!

Anyway, here’s the poop — and look at the PEPCO price: $13.39, about half of what it was a year ago ($26.25) (for month, YTD, year and 5 year, go HERE) If you look at the 5 year trend, it’s the same reflected in Xcel’s demand — everything goes south in 2007.  THIS IS NOT A “BLIP” FROM LAST FALL’S CRASH, this is a 2 year, nearly 3 year trend. (For Xcel month, YTD, year and 5 year, go HERE).

From PEPCO’s 2008 SEC 10-K, here’s their 2007-2008 energy delivery numbers (DOWN), regulated and default:

Here’s PEPCO 2007-7008 SEC 10-K info, 2006-6007, regulated and default – these numbers should be the same for the same years, and they’re not, what does that mean:

Here’s the PEPCO 2006 SEC 10-K info, their 2005-2006 energy delivery numbers (DOWN), first regulated sales:

CLICK HERE – PEPCO’s SEC 10-K filings for lots of years to do your own looking!

From Bloomberg:

Pepco CFO May Postpone Investment to Avoid Share Sale

By Katarzyna Klimasinska

June 26 (Bloomberg) — Pepco Holdings Inc.’s new chief financial officer, Anthony Kamerick, is considering postponing some investments beyond 2010 to prevent selling shares below book value.

Pepco, the owner of Washington’s electric utility, currently plans about $1 billion in total capital projects for 2010, mainly on the Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway transmission line and smart grid, Kamerick said. The completion of the transmission line, also known as MAPP, has already been delayed by a year.

“We have to balance, obviously, the need to make sure our system is safe and reliable for the customers,” Kamerick said in a telephone interview yesterday from Washington, where the company is based. “It’s a delicate balance.”

MAPP is scheduled to start service in June 2014 and will run from northern Virginia, across southern Maryland and Chesapeake Bay, to Indian River, Delaware.

Smart grids will be able to detect power failures and automatically isolate them, increasing the reliability of the power system, according to Pepco.

Pepco sold shares at $16.50 each in November and has had a 25 percent decline so far this year. The current price represents 72 percent of book value, or assets minus liabilities, per share, according to a Bloomberg calculation from company data.

Pepco fell 3 cents to $13.39 in composite trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

Kamerick replaced Paul Barry, who resigned, on June 12. He has worked for Pepco and its predecessor, Potomac Electric Power Co., since 1970, most recently as chief regulatory officer.

LS Power is proposing to put a massive 800+ MW gas peaking plant in Chisago County, right by the Chisago County substation.  This isn’t news for regular Legalectric readers, but the community is just starting to wake up.

This plant was the subject of a utility personal property tax exemption bill introduced by area legislators, Rep. Jeremy Kalin and Sen. Rick Olseen, and they introduced it without notifying local governments that they were pulling out a lot of much needed funding by exempting the plant from taxes (if local residents have to pay taxes, shouldn’t they?  How is LS Power special?).  THIS SAYS THE GOVERNOR VETOED IT.

When it came up at the county, and a Commissioner wanted to send a thank you to Kalin and Olseen, things got a little hot:

Robinson questioned a request from Commissioner Walker if there was consensus to send a thank you letter to state lawmakers for their efforts on the LS Power taxation exemption bill.

Robinson asked who on the County Board supports the electric station project? He wanted a vote that moment on the project.

Chairman Montzka pointed out that all Walker wanted was to let Rick Olseen and Jeremy Kalin know their work at the capitol was appreciated. The LS Power project is under Lent Township zoning authority and while there will be county involvement in wetland issues, etc. the permitting of the facility is not a county matter.

Walker said she’d be happy to just send a personal note if the Board couldn’t unanimously support official correspondence.

That’s encouraging, not everyone is toadying…

There have been meetings this week about the LS Power proposal, one on Monday for “stakeholders” it seems, and another on Tuesday for the public.   The one on Monday, well, we need more information… like, who’s a “stakeholder,” and who decides?

As for Tuesday, here’s a link:

July 23rd Meeting page

And will you look at who was there?!?!?!

Blake Wheatly – LS Power – PowerPoint Presentation

Bob Cupit – Public Utilities Commission 6-23-09

And I hear they’ll be holding another next Monday, so you should go if you’re interested:

Where?

When?

I’m struck by how the statutory reference on the “Friends” site is only to Chapter 216E, the siting and routing process, and worse, it focuses on the the shortened “Ram it Through” alternate review... if they’ve got that up their sleeves, they’ll need a whack upside da head on that one.  And if it’s shortened review, they have the option of “local review.” Is that the plan?  FOR AN 855MW PLANT???  GUESS AGAIN, CUPCAKE!!!

And so, welcome to the Certificate of Need concept.

Minn. Stat. 216.243, Certificate of Need

It seems to me that they had at least one similar meeting over a year ago, in April, 2008, looking at a snippet from Larry Baker’s page — who was regarded as a “stakeholder” then??

Citizen’s Stakeholder Workshop for the Sunrise River Water Quality Study (co-organized as President of Friends of the Sunrise River, with Jerry Spetzman, from Chisago Co. Environmental Services

LS Power’s proposal is moving along in the MISO queue:

Transition Feasibility Analysis — scroll down for G975

As you can see from the G975 chart in the study above, G975 has a few problems:

Here’s an earlier report from one of the three prior MISO queue’d projects for this location:

MISO Feasibility Study – G135

… and what’s interesting about is, first, they eliminated a reconductoring option because it was deemed too costly, not feasible, and here are the other options, starting with Option 2, p. 7 in the study above:

See that big honkin’ 345kV line that would have to be built?!?!

And for Option 3, p. 8:

More transmission lines to be built…

Either way you look at it, we’re talking lots of big transmission in Chisago land.

Whatever are they thinking?

On Monday, the Minneapolis Planning Commission had another hearing and deliberated the HERC garbage burner expansion.  The discussion of the Planning Commission was enlightening — here it is (it’s big, patience), just go here and click “download” and in time, it’ll be there:

Planning Commission deliberation on HERC

After which, of course, they voted it DOWN.  Denied.  No permit.

Thanks to the Planning Commission for taking a close look at this project!

News from the Department of Energy — the Excelsior Energy Mesaba Project’s Environmental Impact Statement, which has been delayed and delayed and delayed, is delayed again, not due out until July… yeah, right… we’ve heard that how many times before?

DOE’s June 2009 Key EIS Chart

So folks, don’t hold your breath…

For the full Excelsior Energy Mesaba Project docket, go to www.puc.state.mn.us and then to “eDockets” and then search for 05-1993, and for the siting docket, search for 06-668.

Oh, and I saw that Renee Sass is now doing something equally reprehensible, some biomass scheme… what was it… if I remember, I’ll put in the link. She’s working with a group of ex-NRG people, of course!

Yesterday was quite the day at the PUC, as Chinesey “interesting” as it gets.  I heard them saying things that made me wonder if I were really awake (and it was doubtful, long evening, rushed morning to get there, snoozing most of the way up).

As I came in, the New Ulm wind project was up.  I’d met some people afffected by this project at the Dog & Pony I did with people working for better wind siting practices in Goodhue County, landowners who had come all the way from Nicollet County, and whoo-boy, were they mad.  They said that the New Ulm muni was wanting to build a wind project, and as there wasn’t suitable land, they wanted to go into Nicollet County and take it by eminent domain!  HUH?  Say what?!?!?

This MOES description from the briefing papers gives a hint:

The proposed New Ulm Wind Farm Project comes to the Commission with a somewhat sullied history and polarized positions between landowners within and adjacent to the project site and NUPUC. OES EFP staff is not aware of the Project’s history prior to 2008.

New Ulm has put in an application.  It’s multi-part and so to get it all, go HERE and search for docket 09-178.

Here are the MOES Staff Briefing Papers:

MOES Staff Briefing Papers

As I got in, the New Ulm item had begun, and they were talking about eminent domain, the New Ulm muni’s plan to use eminent domain to get land to build this project, and here are some paraphrased snippets (count the number of times the term “eminent domain” is used, or “public purpose” or “question” as in “I question whether” and those sorts of words rarely spoken at the PUC:

(remember these are ROUGH paraphrased statements)

Wergin: questions whether eminent domain should be used.  We have an opportunity to investigate.  Questioned whether there’s a common practice to squelch freedom of speech (referring to contract provisions requiring support of the project).

O’Brien – asked whether there was “non-disparagement” language in the contract, utility said no, there was not (non-disparagement?  How about non-disclosure?  His choice of words was odd).

Pugh – there is a SLAPP statute, I sponsored that bill, if City attempted to initiate action it’s available.  Great reservations if this may be forced through eminent domain.  But we can’t legally stop it today, this is “acceptance of application as complete.”

Wergin – for eminent domain, a project must meet the standard for public purpose.

Reha – asked about public process, if and wehn draft permit issued there may be public hearings

Cupit – who gets notice per the rule – don’t have boundaries, some in circled areas got notice, notice should go to all potentially affected.

O’Brien – have to get the power to New Ulm, transmission?

Hartman – limited understanding, New Ulm working on interconnetion that doesn’t have to go through MISO queue

Applicant – there is powerline right next to these sites, or through spearate line to Ft. Ridgely substation about seven miles.

Hartman – MOES had applicant revise study area and did broad notification

A-1 amendment – applicant to submit map and legend

O’Brien – can this project go forward with current land rights?

Applicant – depends on conditions in permit

Wergin – don’t have a choice today, question whether we need additional piece for public participation.

Hartman – we can move forward, OES will bring a draft site permit to review, and Commission can determine what process

O’Brien – Public Advisor – speak to wisdom of project, there are 100s of projects with willing landowners, here it’s disputed.  Ask Public Advisor to address this matter, Commission could ask OES to address.

Reha – Public process as she sees it is draft permit is issued and that triggers the public process.  Will it be coming back?

Cupit – It will be back next when the draft permit is issued

Pugh – concerns about eminent domain issues, power different, our actions are taken as proof that public purpose exists, if it were to go forward in court, that removes the public purpose determination from the court process.  Here, there will be a draft site permit, no analysis has been submitted or need to be submitted as to wheter there’s another way to do it, rather than eminent domain.  We may be making a decision that has impact of declaring that it is a public necessity.  I’d like to see other options, I know I can’t mandate Hartman to do that.

O’Brien – Accept permit, specifically not including public purpose determination

Puch – fine with including that, without that analysis, I don’t feel comfortable taking position.

Reha – supplement application, explaination how they came about this.

O’Brien – ask applicants whether there are other means. 1) not proving public purpose, 2) address reasonable alternative means to acquire renewable resource, then we can act in fairness to all.  If we have authority to accept or reject, we have authority to require additional information.

PUC Counsel – could ask applicant to provide more information

O’Brien – whether they considered purchasing

Counsel – can ask, no need for CoN, this isn’t CoN, need to look deeper

Wergin – munis don’t have RES

Moves A1 as amended, B1, C and D – D = city to provide supplemental info regarding reaching decision re: generation v. PPA, and specifyting that PUC is NOT approving public purpose, that we have genuine issues surrounding that.

Ekness – recommend Dept. look at need issue and potential alternatives.

Wergin – adopt as E.

Passed unanimously.