Legalectric

It’s been too long since I’ve posted anything.  Computer and hardware problems made it too easy to take a “time out” and now the computer is back from Lenovo, but got stuck with Vista again, they wouldn’t put XP on it.  So now we’re trying to work that out.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR! 

Anyway, here’s the ALJ’s Final Report on MCGP’s complaint of ex parte contact on the part of Excelsior Energy:

ALJ Lipman’s Final Report – MCGP Ex Parte Complaint

Like I said,

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!

It’s  such a beautiful fall day today, not a cloud in the sky, geese gathering ovrhead, the trees aren’t realy turning yet here in Delaware like they are in Minnesota.  And it’s a beautiful day for an IGCC wake — it’s been a rough time for coal gasification. Awwwwww… Plans for plants are going down in flames everywhere you look, financiers are saying what the DOE admitted long ago, “IGCC IS TOO RISKY FOR PRIVATE INVSTMENT.”

Mesaba’s DOE Notice of Intent

And the industry is getting it, lots of financial newsletters and blurbs in WSJ, etc., talking about the high risk of IGCC and that investers just aren’t. So here an update on that

TECO, Nuon cancellations underscore IGCC’s woes

Oh, happy day!!! Yet another stake in IGCC’s slimy heart… how many lives could it possibly have?

Here’s a story from Maine:

Lobstermen: ‘Say no to coal’

Bob_Kalish@TimesRecord.Com
10/12/2007

Local fishermen rally on the Sheepscot River to protest proposed 700-megawatt coal and biomass energy plant at the former Maine Yankee site in Wiscasset.

WISCASSET — Joe Robinson gazed across the Wiscasset harbor at the arc of about 30 lobster boats — a veritable parade of boats — and shook his head in awe.

“You know how hard it is to get two fishermen to agree on anything?” he shouted over the throbbing engine as the boat rocked on the increasing swells.

What the lobster boats from the North End Lobster Co-op on Westport Island did agree on, what got them to join Joe’s parade, was the Twin Rivers Energy Center proposed for the former Maine Yankee site down the Back River in Wiscasset. More specifically, the lobstermen are concerned with the possibility of a barge full of tons of coal coming daily up the Sheepscot River.

The proposed energy center would convert coal and biomass into relatively clean-burning gas, which would then be used to produce 700 megawatts of electricity and 9,000 barrels of cleaner diesel fuel per day. Lobstermen and other fishermen are concerned about the transport of coal up the local waterways and the effect of that traffic on their livelihood.

Their concern, and the concern of other opponents, is growing as the date for a Nov. 6 referendum draws closer. The referendum, if passed, would allow changes in the town’s zoning ordinances that limit the height of buildings. If the referendum passes, the permitting process for the energy center can proceed. If it passes, the local fishermen are worried.

“The wake on those barges, five feet or more and 10 feet on the rebound, that would ruin our traps, our docks, it would ruin us,” Robinson said.

Robinson’s idea was to create a show of solidarity among local lobstermen and their supporters. On the water were lobster boats from as far away as Southport. On land, gathered on the Wiscasset Harbor dock, were about 100 supporters with signs expressing their support (“Say No to Coal,” and “Support Our Lobstermen”).

As Robinson’s boat passed the group on land, a cacophonous roar arose from the supporters, punctuated with cries of “Say no to coal.”

And that was about it: a show of cooperation, a banding together over a common concern. Robinson headed back across the water to the North End Co-op, where a press conference was scheduled. The idea for the protest and rally and press conference came from the lobstermen, according to Steve Hichner of the Conservation Law Foundation, which had helped spread word of the event to the media.

“We got the call from the co-op, asking if we’d help publicize it and we did,” he said. “But the idea was theirs.”

At the dock, a small crowd of journalists gathered, along with two state representatives, Rep. Leila Percy, D-Phippsburg, and Rep. Bruce MacDonald, D-Boothbay.

“The coal gasification plant is a bad idea,” said MacDonald. “It’s the wrong technology. We need to figure out a way to use coal that won’t produce so much carbon dioxide, especially since Maine is committed to reducing the amount of carbon dioxide it produces.”

Dana Faulkingham, president of the co-op, said he and his colleagues are trying to save a river and “millions of dollars” industry.

“Having those barges come up here will ruin our livelihood,” he said. “We want to be able to fish these waters with our kids and grandkids. We’ve seen what those barges can do.”

Faulkingham and Stott Carleton, vice president of the co-op, said that years ago the former Mason Station coal-fired electric generating plant, whose brick edifice loomed across the water, received coal barges.

“They would give us a call a few days in advance so we could move our traps,” Carleton said. “But those barges arrived twice a year. With this plant we might have coal barges every day.”

In a statement released the same day, Scott Houldin, principal and project manager of the Twin River Energy Center, said the developers would continue to provide residents with information in the weeks leading up to the Nov. 6 referendum.

“I welcome the opportunity to meet with area fishermen to discuss the project and I’m confident we can work together throughout the permitting process to create appropriate and satisfactory safeguards,” Houldin said.

Proponents of the energy plant say when completed it will create 200 full-time jobs, generate more than $65 million to the local economy, and reduce local property taxes by 80 percent.

Yes, the plot is thickening.  mncoalgasplant.com filed a Complaint of Ex Parte contact over Excelsior Energy’s last minute email to hundreds of people imploring them to send emails to the PUC Commissioners.

mncoalgasplant.com Ex Parte Complaint

Of particular concern was this letter from Deputy Commissioner Ed Garvey:

 Ed Garvey Promo Letter

And at the time, mncoalgasplant.com submitted this objection and tried to have it tossed out:

mncoalgasplant.com Motion to Strike

The ALJ, Eric Lipman, started an investigation, and the PUC produced these documents:

Documents from PUC with ALJ’s 9-14 missive

Well, if you pay attention to the letter at the start of the above packet, you’ll see that Dr. Haar had said they were digging through files, and sure enough, there was more:

Documents unearthed 9-30-07

It seems Senator Tomassoni is “considering” an affidavit — HE HASN’T MADE A STATEMENT UNDER OATH ABOUT THIS.  Now let’s see, if Rep. Mike Beard frankly admits under oath that he was contacted by Julie Jorgensen herself, isn’t it likely that Tomassoni was too?  I sure want a statement under oath.

Soooooo, to get that, to push for that, I’ve sent in requests for subpoenas to get those statements from both Sen. Tomassoni and Deputy Commissioner Ed Garvey about ex parte contact and their missives.   Meanwhile, the ALJ decision on our ex parte Complaint is due today, or probably tomorrow given the “holiday.”  We’ll see how this goes… keep an eye out

So first there was this “Agreement” between BSII partners and the Minnesota Department of Commerce:

BS II Agreement – sans appendices

And then GRE and SMMPA pull out of the deal (smart move, eh?)

So now it’s on the PUC’s agenda for Thursday, October 11, and the PUC’s question is “[w]hat procedural actions should the Commission take at this time, given the apparent change in participation by two of the Applicants?” Hmmmm… “apparent” change, what more do they need to make that real? Anyway, here’s the Staff Briefing Papers on this:

Briefing Papers for Oct 11 PUC meeting

Though staff states that options 1 and 4 in the Briefing Papers are not what they’d recommend, here’s what I’d recommend: BE DONE WITH IT! Yes, Option 4:

4. Dismissing the application without prejudice, requiring the Applicants to file a new
application if they wish to proceed with a revised project.

So spur of the moment, I check out the STrib, and LOOK!!!!!

BIG STONE IS GOING DOWN – GRE HAS PULLED OUT AND NO WAY CAN THIS GO FORWARD WITHOUT GRE!!!

Here’s the St.PPP article:

Great River Energy Withdrawing from Big Stone II

Dig this quote, I mean really, come on, Ward, give me a break… he actually said this:

Uggerud said it’s not uncommon for such changes in large, extensive projects, particularly during a long regulatory process.

Oh, pluh-eeeeeeeze. Oh well… whatever…

EEEEEEEEEEEE-HAAAAAAAAAAA!!!

But then my paranoid self wonders if GRE is instead buying into that IGCC plant proposed in SD??  Or one at Coal Creek, in conjunction with that coal drying DOE project?  So it could be good news and bad news… we’ll see.

Also, I heard a rumor that SMMPA had BSII on their agenda last week and pulled it. IS THAT TRUE??? Anyone know??? The rats are jumping off ship, maybe SMMPA too!!!

Sen. Ellen Anderson has editorial in STrib, and as you may recall, the Global Warming bill was her bill, and that bill exempted Big Stone II from the moratorium:

Coal Plant Step in the Wrong Direction

Slightly different version of the article from AP in the STrib:

Great River Energy withdrawing from Big Stone II

Associated Press

Last update: September 17, 2007 – 6:35 PM
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. — Great River Energy of Elk River, Minn., is withdrawing as an owner of the $1.6 billion Big Stone II power plant, a new coal-fired power plant in extreme northeastern South Dakota, Big Stone II officials said Monday.

Big Stone II officials said Great River Energy representatives told them the decision stems from an analysis that included Great River’s changing demand and other resources.

Great River Energy’s share of the proposed 630-megawatt Big Stone II was 122 megawatts.

Participants in Big Stone II must reaffirm their commitment by certain dates. The next date is Sept. 21, and Great River Energy’s members decided to drop out, officials said.

Also, project officials say Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency, which has a 49 megawatt share, can’t make a long-term commitment until it resolves some litigation.

Officials say SMMPA could remain as a participant, though not as a direct owner.

The five project co-owners are Otter Tail Power Co., Central Minnesota Municipal Power Agency, Heartland Consumers Power District, Missouri River Energy Services and Montana-Dakota Utilities Co.

The North Dakota Public Service Commission held hearings on the project in June. South Dakota’s Public Utilities Commission approved the Big Stone II construction last July.

Environmentalists are trying to stop the plant, saying so much new energy isn’t needed, and that alternatives such as wind power should be explored first. They also say the plant would generate too much carbon dioxide.

On Monday, SMMPA emphasized its support for Big Stone II as a critical resource in helping meet regional needs, Big Stone II officials said in a release.

The lead developer for Big Stone II is Otter Tail Power, of Fergus Falls, Minn. Ward Uggerud, senior vice president, said Great River Energy’s exit does not change the need for new power and transmission facilities for the remaining utilities.

“The remaining utilities’ load requirements show Big Stone II to be the least-cost option for meeting our customers’ demand requirements even if we were to choose to downsize the project given these changes in participation,” he said.

Uggerud said it’s not uncommon for such changes in large, extensive projects, particularly during a long regulatory process.

———