Legalectric

Here they are again, toadies on parade!  Somebody pass the barf bag!  I’m listening to the “Great Plains Briefing” about their European junket, old news that they’re respinning on the eve of both mailing of notices for the CapX2020 transmission lines to transport new ND and SD coal, AND on the eve of the Excelsior Energy Mesaba Project oral arguments and deliberations.

Toadies all…

Are you ready for this — Beth Soholt, Wind on the Wires via Izaak Walton League (Wind on the Wires is a grant, not an organization!), said that CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY IS MARRIED WITH WIND!!!  And she actually said that because we know wind is happening, WE’VE GOT TO WORK ON COAL!!!   WE’VE GOT TO WORK ON COAL!!!  Once more with feeling, WE’VE GOT TO WORK ON COAL!!!  And of course “WE NEED TRANSMISSION” is the other mantra.

Mike Gregerson was, of course, toadying for IGCC as “Great Plains Institute”… but he’s been on the Exclesior Energy payroll, getting our hard earned tax dollars via the IRR… so that’s expected.

But the end was the kicker, here’s Commissioner Gary Hanson of the SD PUC bending over for IGCC, looking for “regulatory certainty,” which is agency-speak for “we must hand them everything they want.”  His “suggestions?”  He wants to eliminate the “least cost” test (part of what killed the Mesaba Project) and base it on “in the public interest, reasonable and necessary, and for economic development.”  Really… read it on p. 37.  As if that wasn’t enough, he advocates for pre-approval of pre-construction and construction investments for generation and transmission.  Gagging yet??? How’s this… he’s also advocating for “enhanced rate of return on investment.”  AAAAAAAAGH!

Here’s the PowerPoint, utterly disgusting:

Lessons Learned and Opportunities for South Dakota and the Region

SLIDE 39: Major support for Coal Gasification Work Group from the Joyce Foundation.

=======================

Northern Plains-Midwest Coal Technology and Climate Policy
Delegation to Europe Briefing
1:30 p.m. (Central Time), Thursday, July 26
Room 412, State Capitol, Pierre, S.D.

AGENDA
1:30 p.m.    Welcome
Gary Hanson, Vice Chairman, S.D. Public Utilities Commission

1:40 p.m.    Presentation of delegation program, key findings, priorities and next steps for South Dakota and the region
Betsy Engelking, Manager, Resource Planning and Bidding,
Xcel Energy
David Hadley, Vice President for State Regulatory Relations,
Midwest Independent System Operator
Beth Soholt, Executive Director, Wind on the Wires
Mike Gregerson, Consultant, Great Plains Institute

2:30 p.m.    Closing remarks — PUC Vice Chairman Hanson

2:40 p.m.    Q&A — Audience and Presenters

I was tooling around the web, getting worked up about the National Petroleum Council’s latest crock o’ lies, lo and behold it’s just like the ConocoPhillips Dog & Pony show!

And then somehow I ended up on a couple Carbon Capture & Storage sites cross referencing each other and Harry Jaeger… and then this choice study pops up on Harry’s site, What’s so hot (and not) about Chilled Ammonia for CO2 Capture, and there’s a report linked in the Comment section that is one you need to download and save. The Carbon Capture Capers post at A Significant Distraction also discusses it, but it’s not linked, said it was on Greenwire.

Here it is, for your reading pleasure, by link (you have to register for “trial”):

Chilled Ammonia-based Wet Scrubbing for Post Combustion CO2 Capture

And here it is, direct:

(doesn’t want to upload)

Coal plant proposal of the day: Cash Creek

Another proposed coal gasification plant is under scrutiny. The Cash Creek IGCC plant is the subject of a public hearing later this week. If it receives reasonable public scrutiny, if the emissions information is public, how could it receive anything but a loud DENIAL of the permit? It’s happened in Minnesota and Delaware, IGCC plants have been found to be not what the proposers spin would indicate. Georgia turned down an IGCC plant recently too. It’s time for another to go down…

PUBLIC HEARING

CASH CREEK AIR PERMIT

Friday, June 29, 2007 @ 6:30 p.m.

Henderson County Courthouse

20 North Main Street

Henderson, KY

Phone: (270) 826-3971

————————————————

Here’s the Draft Air Permit, thanks to Valley Watch:

Cash Creek Draft Air Permit

————————————————-

So I called the Kentycky Air Permit Division, and because Jim Morse, the contact listed on the Cash Creek page (502-573-3382) was on the phone, and so was transferred around several times trying to get information on the deadline for written comments and the process for submission.   Finally I got someone who said that yes, Comments could be submitted by mail and email, and to go to the Notice page, which he directed me to.  OK, fine, so the Notice says Comments may be submitted for 30 days after the publication of the Notice, by mail they must be postmarked by that date.  What’s the date of the Notice?  MAY 20, 2007!!!!

Cash Creek Notice – May 20 2007

 The Comment period ended June 19 or 20, 2007, depending on how you count.  So I called back, got Jim Morse (502-573-3382) and asked about that, and he didn’t regard that as a problem.  “So what would you like me to do about that?”  I said that the Comment period should be extended to provide for submission of Comments some time after the public hearing.  He offered some lame nonsense about being bound by regulations, and I said that I doubt the regulations expressly limit extension of that deadline.  “And who am I talking to?”  I told him and told him of our experience with Mesaba and that I’m working on getting the air emissions information out to the world, to other jurisdictions where IGCC plants are being considered, because the MPCA analysis and the MN record demonstrated that IGCC is NOT what it’s cracked up to be.  He said I should take it up with the Director of the Division, who has already denied two requests for extensions!  Yup, this is how it goes in Kentucky.  He said I should find someone who will be there to submit comments.  OK, fine, I will…

 ————————————-

 Check out this article, and register your comments — registration at the site is a bit of a pain, but it’s worth it to weigh in on this project:

Cash Creek Impact: New EPA rule raises concern

By Mark Wilson (Contact)
Monday, June 25, 2007

With the region facing the challenge of soon having to meet tougher air pollution regulations, environmentalists and local officials are concerned about the impact the proposed Cash Creek power plant in Henderson County, Ky., could have on air quality in the Evansville area.

They’re expected to raise those concerns at a public hearing on the Cash Creek air pollution permit at 6:30 p.m. Friday at the Henderson County Courthouse.

The area learned last week that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is proposing tighter standards on ozone pollution which many counties, including Vanderburgh and Warrick, may have difficulty meeting when they take effect in 2008. In addition, both counties already do not meet federal standards for fine particulate pollution.

“On behalf of the City of Evansville, I would like to reiterate my concerns about the negative impacts a new power plant would have on our region’s air quality,” wrote Mayor Jonathan Weinzapfel in a three-page letter to the Kentucky Division of Air Quality on June 18.

Warrick County Commissioners and Newburgh also have filed letters of concern about the power plant’s possible impact on air quality.

A representative of the Erora Group, the Louisville, Ky.-based company developing the Henderson County power plant, said Friday the facility’s use of “clean coal” technology will cause it to have little impact on local air quality. Building and operating the power plant, they say, will be a boon to the economy.

Despite those assurances, Weinzapfel has asked Kentucky environmental officials to take extra steps to require strict pollution controls and reduction strategies.

The latter includes conducting pollution monitoring both before and after building pollution sources and conducting modeling that would examine the impact of plants such as Cash Creek on air quality in Vanderburgh and Warrick counties.

The plant would be located on Kentucky 1078 near the Green River and next to Patriot Coal Co., which is expected to provide most of the Western Kentucky coal that developers are pledging to use for fueling the plant.

The estimated building cost, $1.5 billion, will create more than 1,000 construction jobs. The plant would employ an estimated 200 people when in operation.

“We are always looking for jobs,” said Paul Kuerzi, board chairman for the Henderson County Chamber of Commerce. “Yes, we are concerned about the environment, but our take is this appears to be as clean a project as you could have in this particular industry. The technology they will be using is quite advanced.”

Cash Creek would use a still-fledgling process called IGCC (integrated gasification combined cycle) that would convert coal into a synthetic gas of mostly hydrogen and carbon monoxide that would then be burned to power turbines and create electricity. The plant is expected to produce 630 megawatts of power for sale.

“We believe it will be the cleanest plant, certainly in Kentucky, if not in the country,” said David Schwartz, an Erora Group spokesman.

Although Cash Creek would have pollution controls for both particulate pollution and ozone-causing nitrogen oxide pollution, according to its proposed permit, it would still have the potential to generate more than 700 tons a year of nitrogen oxide pollution and other pollutants.

“Clean technologies not withstanding, Cash Creek would emit hundreds of tons of air pollution each year and may negatively impact our air quality,” Weinzapfel wrote.

John Blair, president of Evansville-based environmental group Valley Watch, said he will argue at Friday’s hearing that Kentucky officials should treat the plant as if it were going to be located in an area of non-attainment for air quality standards.

“This plant should be built with offsets (equivalent reductions in pollution) as if it were in a non-attainment area,” he said.

“This plant will have an impact on Vanderburgh and Warrick counties, particularity Warrick.”

Hot off the press, and more to follow as it’s available. From the Tallahassee Democrat:

Regulators deny Southwest Florida coal plant

By Jim Ash
Florida Capital Bureau Chief

TALLAHASSEE — The Public Service Commission this afternoon voted unanimously to deny Florida Power & Light’s application for a $5.7 billion, coal-fired power plant 68 miles from Everglades National Park.

Members voted 4-0, with new Commissioner Nancy Argenziano not taking part. The utility regulatory board was charged with deciding whether there was a need for more power and whether it would be economically feasible for its customers.

The decision follows public hearings in April that drew protests from environmental groups. Among the 31 witnesses at those hearings were three Glades County Commissioners who said the plant is desperately needed to create jobs and economic growth.

Opponents argued the plant would contribute to global warming and pollute the famous River of Grass at a time when the state and federal government are spending more than $10 billion to clean it up.

Here’s something with more details from the Palm Beach Post:

PSC rejects FPL’s coal plant in Glades County

By Kristi E. Swartz
Palm Beach Post Staff Writer

Tuesday, June 05, 2007

UPDATED: 4:11 p.m. June 05, 2007

TALLAHASSEE — The Public Service Commission today unanimously denied the Florida Power & Light Co.’s request to build a coal-fired plant in Glades County.

Regulators said they rejected the twin-unit 1960-megawatt coal-fired plant five miles northwest of Moore Haven because the nearly $6 billion project wasn’t cost-effective for consumers.

The decision came after a three-hour debate over whether it was worth it for FPL, the state’s largest utility, to spend a massive amount of money on a coal-fired plant in an attempt to diversify its fuel supply — even though it would still get the majority of its fuel from natural gas.

The bottom line was no.

“The 1,960-megawatt Little Engine That Could that’s going to save the day, I’m having problems with that,” newly appointed PSC Commissioner Nathan Skop said today. “Any diversity is good, but we need to think about having a more comprehensive plan,” he said, referring to nuclear power.

The vote was 4-0 against the plant, with new Commissioner Nancy Argenziano declining to vote, saying she had not had enough time to study the issue.

“The Public Service Commission today made the right decision for the environment, the right decision for the Everglades and the right decision for Florida,” Gov. Charlie Crist said in a statement. “I have been concerned about both the proposed technology and the location of the Glades Power Park.” This is the second time FPL has tried to build a coal-fired power plant in two years. The first project, for southwest St. Lucie County, didn’t make it past the county commission.

FPL, which serves 4.4 million residential and business consumers, said it needs to produce additional electricity to support the state’s growth. It has chosen coal because of the push from the legislature and PSC to move away from natural gas.

In fact, when the utility went before the PSC seeking approval to build what is now the West County Energy Center, a natural gas-fired plant in western Palm Beach County, regulators told FPL that its next planned power plant should produce coal.

Environmentalists, however, have challenged the plant since the first day, saying that FPL could do more to conserve energy and not have to build another plant for several years.

“We applaud the commission’s decision, and with this coal proposal off the table, Florida can now focus on harnessing its vast energy efficiency and renewable energy potential,” said Susan Glickman, a consultant for the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy and the Natural Resource Defense Counsel.

That regulators said “no” to a proposed power plant came as a shock to some observers.

“I can’t remember the last time the PSC denied a needs determination case,” said Holly Binns, field director for the Tallahassee-based Environment Florida.

Had the commission approved the project, FPL still would have had to obtain permits from the state’s environmental protection department and then final approval from Crist and the Cabinet. Crist, known for his environmental advocacy, has often said he was concerned about FPL’s project because of its potential impacts on the nearby Everglades as well as the rest of the state.

He has also encouraged FPL to consider alternative forms of fuel such as wind or solar.

As of 3:30 p.m., FPL representatives had not yet provided a comment.

Earlier, Commissioner Matthew Carter II indicated he wouldn’t support the plant.

“There is little doubt that the growth in FPL’s territory warrants electricity, but does that electricity need to come from pulverized coal? No, FPL can generate this from natural gas,” Carter said.

Carter’s take on the project — an ultra-supercritical pulverized-coal plant that was planned to open in 2013 — came after a deluge of questions from the newly appointed Skop to the PSC staff about whether building one large coal plant would do anything to help diversify FPL’s fuel supply, the majority of which comes from natural gas. If the proposed plant is built, the percentage of fuel that FPL gets from natural gas will be around 60 percent. If the plant isn’t built, the percentage will be 70. “Going from 60 to 70 percent is a big swing,” PSC staffer Tom Ballinger said. “We’re not going to change fuel diversity overnight, but FPL is going to have to start somewhere.” The Florida legislature has been pushing the PSC and the state’s utilities to look at coal, nuclear and renewable forms of energy to get away from pricey natural gas. “This is a landmark decision that will have a profound impact on Florida’s energy policy,” Skop said.

Last night, there was a meeting held at Hamline … passive language, I know… I was going to say “sponsored by…” but I can’t really figure that out. So let’s identify all the suspects: At the auditorium entry taking names and emails was Justin Eibenholzl, Southeast Como Improvement Association. Beyond that toward the door was Nina “don’t quote me!” Axelson, Community Organizer for St. Anthony Park Community Council – District 12, telling Neighbors Against the Burner that they could not hold signs outside the door of the auditorium! And running interference out in the hall was Carl Nelson of the Green Institute. Who should stroll in but Steve Taff, U of M Applied Economics, the guy who does things like “Pathways to a reduced-carbon energy system for the Midwest.” District Heating’s Anders Rydaker and Bill Malum, Ken Smith (the site blurs District Heat/Market Street) were there, but what can you say about an entity that brags about a visit from Bush? And of course there were at least two from Rock-Tenn, Steve Haselmann and Jack Greenshields.

I was in on this because a certain Mr. Muller was pulled in by Neighbors Against the Burner to lend his technical expertise (garbage burners have been run out of Delaware and they’ve got strong legislative language to keep them out!). These fights are all the same, and this is Alan’s forte.

For some reason, the neighbors are finding that those they’d expect to support their efforts to stop the burner are taking very odd and painful positions — and that has much to do with the Metropolitan Emissions Reduction Project that’s shutting down Xcel’s St. Paul High Bridge coal plant. There’s a problem here, because Rock-Tenn has painted itself as the poor victim of MERP, which is shutting down the coal High Bridge Plant and there goes Rock-Tenn’s steam, and of course it’s all the enviro’s fault and all the legislators fault that High Bridge is closing, poor Rock-Tenn, they’d better do something to help poor Rock-Tenn. And they forget to mention that Rock-Tenn’s 20 year contract with NSP for that steam is up in July, 2007. Or that the garbage burner that Rock-Tenn dreams of is not only much higher priced than natural gas, but it requires massive public subsidies to not only build the burner, but to build a bigger Newport facility to collect garbage and another C&D facility to deal with that — oh, isn’t this a great idea for our tax dollars? No tax dollars for health care, but tax dollars to make us sick…

A few main things that jump out at me — THIS IS THE OPINION OF OVERLAND:

1) The legislation and the enviros’ MERP deal did NOT create Rock-Tenn’s contractual problem and the demise of its steam supply. End the guilt — don’t take on their problems!
2) Hey, Rock-Tenn, ever hear of laches? They knew the contract was running out and they pay big bucks for legislative and administrative representation. They did not say a peep in the MERP docket and din’t bother to intervene — only send a pissy letter at the very end.

3) To the extent there are any public subsidies, there must be an equal public equity interest!

Here are some of the handouts:

Agenda and Contact Info

Rock-Tenn language from SF 2096 Energy Omnibus Finance

Rock-Tenn Steam Permit FAQ

Here’s the Green Institute report, which has a very narrow scope for the $$$ paid:

 Green Institute – Biomass Fuel Report

Here’s the “FrOTH” report promoting a garbage burner:

(where did that go???)

Here’s a Memorandum of Understanding between MPCA and Rock-Tenn:

Memorandum between MPCA and Rock-Tenn

And here’s an interesting Resolution from Ramsey County supporting a “legislative MERP charge” for Rock-Tenn which for some reason doesn’t mention that in July 2007  the Rock-Tenn Contract runs out:

 RamseyCoResolution-RockTenn

I’ve still got some reports to scan in, others to find, and will post those and some more links someday soon…