Another wind-transmission-coal deal … sigh…
October 21st, 2005
So we have another deal, for transmission AND a coal plant — backing off against the new Big Stone II coal plant in exchange for “transmission for wind.” Right… I’m still working on getting a copy of the agreement.
Funny, there’s no mention of the Belfield plant that the MTEP06 plan talks about connecting on this line… that report says in point 2 (emphasis added):
6.1 Regional projects or Study Areas of Focus:
? CAPX (Incorporates prior Northwest Area Exploratory Project) ? Three options are to
be pursued:1. Coal fields of North Dakota to Fargo to Benton County outside of the Twin Cities
2. Belfield, North Dakota (site of a new 500 MW coal plant) to Ellendale, South
Dakota to Big Stone area to Granite Falls to Blue Lake, Minnesota
3. Cross link from Ellendale to Fargo
Here’s another link to the Belfield plant, minutes from the Lignite Research Council.
Oh great, as if mercury and emissions sufficient to knock your SOx and NOx off isn’t enough, the Belfield coal has uranium in it! Check this: Nuclear Decommissioning – Belfield Ashing Facility Site
FINALLY – Here’s the article in the Sioux Falls’ Argus Leader — I used to read it regularly at the 399 mile marker on Saturday mornings…
Deal ‘opens the door’ to wind powerBEN SHOUSE
bshouse@argusleader.comArticle Published: 10/21/05
A coal-fired power plant in the works near Milbank could spawn new wind farms in South Dakota, a possible source of renewable energy and of millions of dollars in fees for landowners and tax revenue for the state.
The power companies building the Big Stone II plant announced Thursday that they will build extra electricity transmission capacity into their project, making room on the grid for wind farms in South Dakota or Minnesota.
The plant itself will generate 600 megawatts – enough to power 300,000 homes or more – and a new transmission line will add 800 to 1,000 megawatts of spare capacity on top of that, said Mark Rolfes of Otter Tail Power Co.
“Essentially, this opens the door,” said Public Utilities Commissioner Dusty Johnson in Pierre.
“This is going to help wind farm development in many places in South Dakota because the transmission grid is so interconnected.”
The companies also will add air pollution controls to the existing Big Stone plant as well as the new plant, resulting in no increases in most types of air pollution, Rolfes said.
Deanna White of the Sierra Club’s Sioux Falls office said she appreciates the effort. But she is not convinced the wind energy benefits will materialize and questions the wisdom of burning coal in the first place.
“Ultimately, we don’t believe that investing in coal-fired power plants is the way to go,” she said. “We believe that the best choice would be to invest in renewable energy and conservation measures.”
The Izaak Walton League’s Midwest office in St. Paul and several other advocacy groups also oppose the new plant.
In June, seven power companies announced plans to build the $1 billion plant between 2007 and 2011, to serve customers in northeast South Dakota, and in North Dakota and Minnesota.
It would be the largest single investment ever made in South Dakota.
Rolfes said Thursday’s announcement was partly in response to environmental groups concerned about pollution from a new coal plant, and the desire of citizens to see the region’s tremendous potential for wind power realized.
“The transmission’s biggest benefit is hopefully the public acceptance that we’re trying to do the right thing,” he said.
Johnson said the move made Public Utilities Commission approval more likely. That process probably will wrap up sometime next year.
“The two big announcements they made today – excess transmission capacity and a lot more pollution control – is going to make it a lot easier for this commission to see this project as good for South Dakota,” he said.
But White of the Sierra Club said it is not clear that the extra capacity would all go for wind.
“They’re very dedicated to the idea of getting this plant built and getting it permitted. I don’t believe that they’re lying, I just think that they’re putting the best spin on things,” she said.
Federal rules dictate that excess transmission capacity goes to the first power source able to use it, so there is no way to ensure it will go to wind power, said Steve Schultz of Missouri River Energy Services. But he said wind is the most likely user because power companies do not have any other sources planned.
The new plant will be right next to an existing 425-megawatt plant, making it possible to remove air pollution from both the old and the new plants.
For example, a scrubber technology called “wet flue gas desulfurization” will remove about 95 percent of the sulfur dioxide emissions, which contribute to acid rain. That means emissions of both plants will be 15 percent of what Big Stone I emits today, Rolfes said.
A technology called selective catalytic reduction will remove nitrogen oxides, which cause smog and acid rain.
Rolfes said because technology is changing, it is not clear what kind of controls the new plant will have for mercury, a pollutant that collects in fish and can cause brain defects in fetuses and children. He said he expects mercury emissions of both plants to be less than those of Big Stone I.
Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch in Washington, said most of those technologies are state of the art, but he was disappointed by the lack of a clear plan for mercury.
“It’s actually a little alarming to hear that they’re hedging their bets on what they’re going to do about mercury,” he said. “There is technology being sold now commercially that can take 80 or 90 percent of mercury out of systems.”
Reach Ben Shouse at 331-2318.
Transmission for Dummies
October 19th, 2005
What with all the new transmission projects proposed for Minnesota, I’ve had a couple requests for Transmission for Dummies, and I don’t know how to get it to show up separately here, so here they are:
Coal on the Wires – two 345kV lines coming in from out west – Transmission for Dummies #4
October 17th, 2005
What about “it’s for coal” don’t you understand?
It comes in from points west, like North Dakota and South Dakota, zips over to the 345kV ring around the cities, which, like a turnabout, shoots it out across the upgraded King-EauClaire-Arpin line, the Prairie Island-Byron line and the just announced Prairie Island-Roch-LaX line… a superhighway through Minnesota.
How many points does it take to discern a line? How many plants to discern a lie?
There’s the SW Minnesota Study with a listing of the coal plants to come on line…
There’s the Transmission Omnibus Bill from Hell.
There’s the announcement of 6 projects made possible by the TOBfH.
Download file
There’s the Big Stone II transmission application.
There’s the MTEP06 plan that says:
6.1 Regional projects or Study Areas of Focus:
? CAPX (Incorporates prior Northwest Area Exploratory Project) ? Three options are to
be pursued
1. Coal fields of North Dakota to Fargo to Benton County outside of the Twin Cities
2. Belfield, North Dakota (site of a new 500 MW coal plant) to Ellendale, South
Dakota to Big Stone area to Granite Falls to Blue Lake, Minnesota
3. Cross link from Ellendale to Fargo
There’s the “coal fields of North Dakota to Fargo to Benton County” line:
There’s the Belfield NEW COAL PLANT to Ellendale to Big Stone II NEW COAL PLANT to Granite Falls to Blue Lake:
Is something wrong with this picture?
American Transmission Company says “public interest” is not an issue!
October 14th, 2005
Now and again clients are suprised by a bizarre self-destructive action of an opponent, in those rare moments when ugly truths are revealed. But as we say in transmission, “It’s all connected.” And as we all know, those with power are not interested in openness, equity or public interest!
Just yesterday, I received the American Transmission Company reply to the W.O.L.F. response to the ATC Motion to close the Arrowhead docket. It was mailed September 30… came by oxcart…my client received it today…
To look at the docket, go to this page and type in docket number 05-CE-113. At the next screen, click on the underlined docket number, then it goes to “Docket Summary” page, and go to bottom left and click on “Documents” for a whole bunch of filings, but mostly from Arrowhead #2 and #3.
ATC wrote a letter,Download file, reporting they were delighted to announce an agreement with Douglas County,Download file, which the Commission deemed a Motion to close the docket. We got notice, and responded to that Motion.
In W.O.L.F.’s Response,Download file, because the Agreement had not yet been made public, we had a simple argument:
Settlement agreements have an impact beyond the direct impact on the parties of the Agreement. In an administrative proceeding, the agency should not close a docket without first securing a copy of the Agreement for the file, assuring that all parties have been served with a copy of the agreement, and then the Commission must review the Agreement to assure that it addresses all issues pending. Intervenors other than those party to the Agreement must have an opportunity for review and comment, as must the general public, many of whom are affected landowners who likely did not or will not receive the largess of benefits that Douglas County will receive as a result of this Agreement. Because this Agreement is only a part of a much larger proceeding, the interests of Intervenors and the public interest must be taken into account. If, after review, the Commission determines that all issues are indeed addressed, that the Settlement Agreement is equitable, and has addressed issues in a manner that is not injurious to the public interest, then it may be appropriate to close the docket.
GASP! What a revolutionary concept!
Here’s ATC’s Reply: Download file
Lauren Azar
Here’s the best part — I cannot believe Lauren would write this and I’m still shaking my head:
Whether the Agreement is “equitable” or “in the public interest” is not an issue currently before the Commission and, is therefore, irrelevant to the Commission’s determination on whether to close this docket. (The Commission does not review and approve the agreements by which utiltities acquire rights-of-way to ensure they are “equitable” or “in the public interest.”)
Oh, really!?!
If I ruled the world, all agreements that let utilities have their way with the public would be PUBLIC INFORMATION and subject to public interest scrutiny.
Maybe the PSC will look at its own letterhead or the sign outside there on Whitney and realize that they’re the “PUBLIC SERVICE Commission.”
When it rains, it pours (mercury laden rain)
October 7th, 2005
Today, awaiting me at the office, was “Application to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission for Certificate of Need for Transmission Lines in Western Minnesota, with a cute little logo “Big Stone – Partners in Transmission.”
There’s a Big Stone II website in the works.
But until it’s up and running, the info is on the OtterTail site:
Here comes another 345kV line for coal. Just what Minnesota needs. Committed for another 50 years to coal (and don’t forget the Monticello dry cask storage and relicensing). What’s wrong with this picture?
No, I do not accept transmission.
No, I do not accept transmission for coal.
This is utter fucking bullshit.
I will do what I can.
I will start by stocking up on Thank You Notes to send to all those who made possible these six transmission projects coming down the pike. Download file That will give people something to do at the public meetings.
Yup, we’re starting to feel the impacts of the Transmission Omnibus Bill from Hell, S.F. 1368.
If you’re some sort of nutwad and want one of these, call Todd Guerrero at Pig, Dog & Duck, (612) 371-3258 or email him, and he’ll send you one too!
And Esther Phillips’ “I can stand a little rain” is on my tape loop…