Legalectric

The Big Stone II decision came out a few minutes ago, and it’s more BS…

Big Stone II – ALJ Recommendation

… sob…

And here’s the really disturbing part, from paragraph, #10 in the Conclusions:

The Applicants failed to give meaningful consideration to the Mesaba Project as a supply option as required by Minn. Stat. § 216B.1694, subd. 2(a)(5). However, that failure may be excused because it is unlikely that energy from the Mesaba Project will be available when Big Stone II comes online. The Commission may wish to condition the Certificate of Need upon the Applicants making the Mesaba Project a supply option for a portion of their additional energy needs.

Minn. Stat. § 216B.1694, subd. 2(a)(5) states, in pertinent part:

(5) shall, prior to the approval by the commission of any arrangement to build or expand a fossil-fuel-fired generation facility, or to enter into an agreement to purchase capacity or energy from such a facility for a term exceeding five years, be considered as a supply option for the generation facility, and the commission shall ensure such consideration and take any action with respect to such supply proposal that it deems to be in the best interest of ratepayers;

Oh??? And just what “fossil-fuel-fired generation facility” might the PUC be approving here? As the opinion carefully notes, it’s transmission, not the generation part of the project that’s at issue here. So WFT???

In the STrib:

Coal-fired plant gets boost from judges

The PUC was advised to issue permits for transmission lines to carry power from the proposed South Dakota plant to Minnesota.

By Mike Meyers, Star Tribune

Last update: August 15, 2007 – 9:19 PM

Plans for a $1.6 billion coal-fired power plant on Minnesota’s boundary with South Dakota cleared a major milestone Wednesday, when two administrative law judges urged state regulators to issue permits for transmission lines to deliver power to customers in Minnesota.The next step comes later this year, when the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) decides whether to follow the advice of administrative law judges Steve Mihalchick and Barbara Neilson.

Without the transmission permits, the 630-megawatt power plant, called Big Stone II, wouldn’t be built in Big Stone City, S.D., about 175 miles west of Minneapolis. About 2 million of the 2.3 million electricity customers who would get power from the plant live in Minnesota.

The decision, which was months behind schedule, was hailed as a victory by the developers of Big Stone II, but was called disappointing and perplexing by critics who have tried to scuttle the power plant they call a costly and unnecessary polluter.

“We’re gratified,” said Rick Matteson, spokesman for a partner in the project, MDU Resources Group, based in Bismarck, N.D.

“This is a significant ruling,” he said. “It’s really one of the last hurdles we had to jump to bring this plant into reality to serve customers.”

Environmental groups vowed to fight on, however.

“We are very disappointed,” said Bill Grant, director of the Midwest office of the Izaak Walton League, an environmental advocacy group with offices in St. Paul.

Grant said that he and other environmentalists will appeal to the PUC to ignore the findings. Transmission lines, if approved, would crisscross Minnesota and cost as much as $275 million to build. The power plant, whose start-up costs are footed by developers and paid for over time by customers, is planned to be up and running in 2012.

“We believe the administrative law judges got it wrong,” Grant said.

Mihalchick and Neilson, who advise the PUC concerning regulatory measures, downplayed expected future costs of carbon emissions if the federal government imposes caps on how much carbon dioxide utilities and industries can send into the air.

Big Stone II annually will emit an estimated 5 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO₂), a greenhouse gas linked to global warming.

A government tax on carbon could add $20 a ton to the cost of burning coal at Big Stone II, Grant said.

“In our view, those costs will be significant and enough to make it uneconomic relative to a plant that didn’t emit CO₂ or less CO₂,” he said.

The judges sided with estimates of prospective carbon tax costs closer to those provided by Big Stone II developers, in the range of $6 to $9 a ton, Grant said.

Big Stone II will incorporate technology to reduce CO₂ emissions by 20 percent, say developers of the plant, a consortium of utilities that includes Otter Tail Power, Central Minnesota Power, Great River Energy and the Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency. They already operate another coal plant, Big Stone I, in town.

Environmentalists are not convinced.

“I’m perplexed,” said Beth Goodpaster, a lawyer for the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy.

The administrative law judges seemed to align themselves with many of the arguments of critics of the power plant, but then come down on the side of Big Stone II developers, she said.

Goodpaster said she was heartened to read that the judges saw flaws in the estimates of Big Stone II developers who certified that a coal-fired plant was the cheapest way to produce power for customers.

“If Big Stone has not evaluated all their alternatives properly, how do you know they need the plant?” she said. “It just doesn’t make sense.”

A PUC decision concerning the plant is expected before the end of the year.

Mike Meyers • 612-673-1746

Mike Meyers • meyers@startribune.com

The Mesaba Project non-decision on the IGCC coal gasification boondoggle of the century came down at the PUC week before last — has it been that long? (I guess it’s fair to say that it made me sick, for the last week, I’ve been taking massive amounts of drugs for ear infections, unable to hear, and living with the feeling of ice picks and red-hot needles sticking in my ears… sometimes it’s hard to be a dog… but being waited on and cared for sure helps!) I’ve been at a loss to explain it, and looking at the 20 pages of notes just made it even more frustrating. As luck would have it, the PUC did it for me, issuing a memorandum on the decision, and here’s what it says:

Commission Acts on Mesaba Plant Petition
At its meeting on August 2, 2007, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission acted on
the petition of Excelsior Energy for approval of a power purchase agreement (PPA) with Xcel involving an integrated gasification combined cycle coal-fired power plant in
Northern Minnesota (PUC Docket No., E-6472/M-05-1993). The Commission acted on
two threshold issues:

Is Excelsior Energy’s Mesaba Unit 1 Project an Innovative Energy Project
(IEP) under Minn. Stat. §216B.1694?

Should the Commission Approve, Disapprove, Amend, or Modify Excelsior’s
Proposed Purchase Power Agreement with Xcel Energy?

Regarding the first point, the Commission unanimously adopted a motion by
Commissioner Pugh that the proposed project complied with the specific criteria spelled out in statute and, therefore, qualified as an Innovative Energy Project.

Regarding the proposed power purchase agreement, the Commission unanimously adopted a motion by Commissioner Pugh which in essential part included the following:

Find that the PPA is not in the public interest as currently drafted, but request that Excelsior, Xcel, and the Department continue to negotiate toward a final PPA.

The Commission went on to identify deficiencies in the proposed PPA it wanted
addressed in the negotiations. They include:

• The absence of a fixed price at a reasonable level

• The need for adequate ratepayer protections from operational risks of the proposed technology
  

• The need for adequate ratepayer protections from financial risks of the proposed technology
  

• The need for further development of plans to capture and sequester carbon

In addition, the Commission asked the parties to explore how the output of such a
facility could be marketed to all Minnesota’s utilities and their ratepayers.

A formal written order will be prepared and issued by the Commission in the next few
weeks. For more information, call Burl Haar (651.201.2222) or Janet Gonzalez
(651.201.2231)

So late on Thursday afternoon, there’s a filing in the inbox from the “Department of Commerce” with none other than Pawlenty-appointed Deputy Commissioner touting the Mesaba Project, despite the expert analysis of his own Dept. of Commerce!!!  We fired off an objection and Minnesota Power fired off an objection, YES!!!

Garvey’s July 27 Toady-Rah-Rah Letter

What’s wrong with this picture? Here’s the Gov’s boy sending this letter directly to the Commissioners! Had I done that, they’d probably shoot me! The record closed MONTHS AGO, and he’s got no business leaning on the Commissioners directly, I don’t care who he owes what, I don’t care if Pawlenty owes Excelsior — though I do care what exactly Pawlenty owes them and why!!!

Here are the objections filed thus far:

MCGP – Motion to Strike Commerce “Comment”

 Minnesota Power letter of objection

I hope everyone will read the Staff Briefing Papers:

Staff Briefing Papers for July 31 & Aug 2

Here’s the Twin West Chamber toadying for Excelsior:

Twin West toadying letter for Excelsior

And join us for tomorrow’s festivities at the PUC:

Excelsior’s Mesaba Project

Oral Argument – Tuesday July 31, 2007 @ 9:30 a.m.

Deliberations – Thursday, August 2, 2007 @ 9:30

Public Utilities Commission

121 – 7th Place East, St. Paul

Large Hearing Room, 3rd Floor

Odd word, “deliberation.” Whatever the result, this will be INTERESTING!!!

Come on down!!!

Oh, there they go again, ass over teakettle, overboard in a desperate attempt to change the tide.  When will Excelsior Energy get the message that this IGCC Mesaba Project is NOT going to fly?  Coal Gasification Not Welcome Here!!!

Today, I’ve filed a formal Complaint against Excelsior for their impermissible, improper, and utterly implausible-that-they-would-d0-something-so-asinine on the eve of the Mother of All Oral Arguments!

Here’s our Complaint:

MCGP – Complaint re: Excelsior Energy ex parte contact

 LINK TO EX PARTE STATUTE
 LINK TO EX PARTE RULE

They’re always pushing it, stretching every rule, but this one just can’t slide…

Lots happening with Excelsior Energy’s Mesaba Project as it inches toward its long-awaited demise. First up — Excelsior Energy’s ex parte contact! It’s pretty basic, and the rules in Minnesota are pretty specific, but remember, we’re talking about Excelsior here…

First email:

>>> “Leanne Stanley” <LeanneS@excelsiorenergy.com> 7/26/2007 10:42 AM >>>

Hello everyone – as you know, our hearing before the Public Utilities Commission is next Tuesday, July 31.

We’ve been working hard to prepare, and as you’ve seen by our recent announcements, the Project itself is shaping up quickly. We have passed a lot of milestones this summer, including getting our transmission interconnection agreement signed so our output will be deliverable throughout MISO, getting site control of our second site, kicking off the final phase of engineering before construction starts, and nearing the date our joint state/federal EIS will be published. But, now is crunch time – you have been so helpful and supportive in the past, but I would like to ask you to do one more thing before the hearing – please email the PUC Commissioners and express your support for the Mesaba Project. Just a few sentences in your own words would be extremely helpful. Here are the email addresses for the Commissioners: Please reference The Mesaba Energy Project PPA Docket No. 05-1993

(Excelsior linked PUC Commissioner’s emails here — REDACTED BY CAO!)

Please do not hesitate to contact Pat Micheletti at 651-214-5184 or me at 218-245-1205 if you have any further questions. As always, thank you so much for your continuing support!

Leanne Stanley
Public Affairs Representative

=====================
Second email — oh, I bet you wish you could:

>>> “Leanne Stanley” <LeanneS@excelsiorenergy.com> 7/26/2007 11:00 AM >>>

Leanne Stanley would like to recall the message, “UPCOMING PUC HEARING – COULD YOU SEND AN EMAIL FOR US?”.

=====================
Third email — aaaahhh, the joys of the internet:

>>> “Leanne Stanley” <LeanneS@excelsiorenergy.com> 7/26/2007 12:10 PM >>>

Hi –

Please disregard the email you received from me earlier today. It was sent in error. Please do not send any emails to any of the people listed in my earlier email request. I apologize for any inconvenience caused by my earlier message.

Thank you,

Leanne Stanley
Public Affairs Representative

==================================
The statute and rule are pretty clear on prohibitions of ex parte communications. Here’s the statute, which also lays out the Complaint process:

216A.037 EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS; CODE OF CONDUCT; RULES.

Subdivision 1. Ex parte communications prohibitions; rules. (a) The commission shall
adopt rules under chapter 14 prescribing permissible and impermissible ex parte communications. The ex parte rules may prohibit only ex parte communications, directly or indirectly, between a commissioner and a participant under the commission’s rules of practice and procedure relating to:

1) a material issue during a pending contested case proceeding…

Here’s the rule:

7845.7200 PROHIBITED EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS.

Subpart 1. Communications with commissioners. An ex parte communication, either direct or indirect, must not be made or attempted to be made between a commissioner and a party concerning:

A. a material issue during a pending contested case proceeding, from the date the matter is referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings until the commission issues its final order and the time to petition for reconsideration expires, or until the commission issues a final order responding to the petition for reconsideration, whichever is later…

Something tells me Leanne’s in a bit of a pickle…

Meanwhile, the Minneapolis/St. Paul Business Journal has named Julie Jorgensen as a “Woman to Watch.”  Don’t worry, Julie, we be watchin’.