Transmission Bill is Policy Disaster
June 1st, 2005
My Guest Column is in the Northfield News:
Transmission Bill is Policy Disaster
Ray Cox supports the Transmission Omnibus Bill because “SF1368 contains some very good provisions. The bill has an interesting group of supporters.”
Sounds good, until you look deeper, and that’s the job of a legislator. I don’t hear the important questions: What’s the supporters’ interest in this bill? Is this bill in the public interest?
The bill’s supporters don’t speak for a broad coalition of “environmental groups.” They speak in their own names in their own self-interest growing from a transmission agreement in 2003, between the Izaak Walton League, ME3, North American Water Office and the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy.
The agreement contained a transmission agenda on which this bill is based, promoted by these groups, notably “Wind on the Wires” (WOW), a Walton/ME3 pseudo-organization based on a very large grant from the Energy Foundation. In 2001, WOW received $4.5 million and in 2003, the day after the TRANSLink agreement was announced, it was awarded $8.1 million. The purpose of this Wind on the Wires grant? To promote transmission.
WOW has joined with utilities, transmission organizations and coal companies with plants in North and South Dakota to promote transmission in the hopes that large wind developments will secure transmission access. WOW has pushed environmental groups to adopt its transmission agenda.
What’s wrong with that? It assumes that the many megawatts of planned coal upgrades and construction will not usurp transmission access, but that cannot be guaranteed. It also assumes that large central station wind developments which necessitate large transmission infrastructure, which is only one option to get renewables on line. The SEED coalition, composed of the major environmental groups, has repeatedly declined to adopt the WOW transmission agenda, a significant policy statement.
Yet on his blog, Ray Cox claims that SF1368 contains provisions that he’s “glad to see:”
* Creation of the Community Based Energy Development ? or C-BED. This tariff will help Minnesota property owners finance small wind-energy systems.
* Promotion of bio-mass energy projects.
* Promotion of development of hydrogen energy technologies.
* Includes a Wind Integration Study to determine what is needed to reach a statewide 20 percent energy from renewable sources. The report will be presented to the Legislature in January 2006.
* Promotes construction of transmission lines that are needed for the delivery of wind energy.
It’s not that simple. C-BED corrects a problem created by “environmental” groups in the negotiation of the wind tariff, which was set too low for a competitive investors market to develop. C-BED front-end loads the contract, rather than correct the problem. An avoidant approach is not good policy.
Biomass and hydrogen projects are a mixed bag that requires a more thoughtful forum than legislation, because the green house gas and fuel preference issues of biomass and the issue of hydrogen production from onerous coal and nuclear sources have not been settled.
A Renewable Energy Standard is a good thing for Minnesota, but the WOW party line would not permit language that the energy be generated in Minnesota, conferring local benefits from taxes, jobs and investment. For that reason, the RES lost some grassroots support.
“Transmission for wind” is an illusion, as we learned in the southwest Minnesota transmission proceeding where only 213-302 megawatts of the 2085 capacity 345kV line is coming south from Buffalo Ridge into the line. The 1700MW of remaining capacity is for what? Transmission under federal law is “non-discriminatory,” as is electricity under the laws of physics, and no one can assure that transmission will be “for wind.” In fact, it is a lot easier to assure that much will be for coal, given the number of coal plants under construction, for example the Big Stone and Coal Creek additions of 1,100MW. The CapX2020 plan for transmission criss-crossing the state shows what’s in store for us.
The transmission provisions are significant changes in public policy. Ray Cox has been given resources for follow-up, he’s even attended my “Transmission 1001,” yet he accepts the Transmission Omnibus Bill.
This bill allows TRANSLink style companies to operate in Minnesota and divests our state of jurisdiction over that transmission. Ray Cox is willing to accept “regional” need as justification for new transmission rather than require it be based on need within Minnesota. He is also willing to accept language that gives transmission owners automatic rate recovery for transmission “for renewables” rather than have them prove up that claimed use.
All legislators have access to this information, and have the ability to ask questions. It’s their job. We’ll soon wake up and discover our energy nightmare.
Visiting Sadie & the Arrowhead Transmission Line
May 21st, 2005
Greetings from Duluth!
Moorhead Thursday, Duluth Friday, if I were still driving that KW, I’d have made some real money this week!
I’m visiting Sadie, friend and roommate from ages ago, back from my prestigeous E. Phillips days. First and foremost, Sadie’s a writer, and has one book under her belt so far, and she has also been a union organizer and worked at the Riverside Cafe for a coon’s age. Anyone who did anything political back then knows her, and knew her dog Charisma, who successfully fled persecution and prosecution for not wearing her leash by ducking into North Country Hardware! Sadie and I first met when we worked at General Hospital, even further back, and other co-workers there, who’ve since morphed and resurfaced, included David Bly, Steve Miles and James Kravig.
Sadie’s a bus driver now, and I got a guided tour of scenic Superior’s Billings Park neighborhood.
And she and Laura and Sammy have a new house — moving up in the world. Back during the Minnesota Arrowhead hearing, they provided a home for my client, Linda Hanson, and I, and put up with us through two weeks of “officing” in the garage on a door and crates — now that’s a friend! Well, plus the dog has pointed ears…
And next, the Arrowhead line. As I flew down the hill into Duluth, there it was, and it is butt ugly. Sticks up WAY over the treeline, ugly brown rusty never-needs-painting Cor-Ten steel against the sky. Photos — get ready!
This first one was taken on a Midway Township road to show what it looks like to the local residents:
This one below was taken on another Midway Township road showing the view up the right of way:
This next one was taken on Midway Road, which runs parallel to the Willard Munger Trail, the trail is on the left, behind the row of trees and just under the “unobtrusive” transmission line. W.O.L.F. entered a photo like this in the MN EQB Arrowhead hearing, but the transmission line at that time was nestled in the treeline and was not visible.
This is driving south on Midway Road looking east towards Gary:
This is my favorite, a long iron double-decker bridge across the St. Louis River. Lots of fishing going on below, Lake Sturgeon are found there. The bridge, at the time of the August/September 2000 hearing, had a wood deck and was “upgraded” to cement, and it’s lost much of its character. W.O.L.F. entered a fantastic photo of the sunset through this bridge which showed it at its historical best, here the poles are a LOT taller and visible, they were a grey/blue that blended in a little bit, here they’re ugly rust:
This photo is on the Minnesota side looking east down the right-of-way towards the iron bridge across the St. Louis River:
And this one is from the same spot looking west toward Gary and beyond:
So how’s that for ugly? Let’s see what the PUC has to say about ATC taking over this part of the Arrowhead line.
I’m off on the outskirts of Gary, taking photos and crusing, headed out of town to see if the scenic overlook overlooked the transmission, drat, it didn’t, and I see there’s a bus stop out there in the middle of nowhere at the overlook, and as I’m heading back into Gary, there goes Sadie, doing a drive by, filling in for another driver on the 2 route!!!
p.s. Should I take it as an editorial comment that someone keeps “commenting” with “anti-snoring” spam to my first transmission post?
Transmission Bill from Hell on MPR
May 18th, 2005
Here’s the beginning, the very tip of the iceberg, on the Transmission
Omnibus Bill from Hell, HF1344 and SF 1368, from reporter Stephanie Hemphill, of MPR:
Power Struggle
There could very well be more soon on Arrowhead Transmission Line docket at the PUC where Minnesota Power is wanting approval for ATC to take over for MP in Minnesota — and the ATC/TRANSLink tie.
Stay tuned…
SE Minnesota Zone Biennial Transmission Plan
May 12th, 2005
Today is the SE Minnesota Zone Transmission Plan meeting.
TONIGHT – 7:00 p.m.
Rochester Public Utilities
4000 E. River Road N.E.
Rochester
They’ll be talking about SE region projects, including new transmission and upgrades.
What’s scary is they’ll also be talking about CapX 2020, the transmission owners’ dream.
The Capx 2020 report was to be released yesterday, but it’s not on their website. The interim report is, so you can read that while you’re cooling your heels.
And now, a couple hours after I first posted this, here’s the final CapX 2020 report!!! CHECK P. 7, it shows 16,712 MW in the MISO queue, and they’re doing a chicken little over “needing” 6,500MW in the same area? Um…. we’re a bit ahead of the game, even with liberal discounts for peaking and intermittent generation! We are not going to freeze in the dark in an incubator without a job, that much is clear.
Come on over to Rochester and let the Minnesota Transmission Owners know what you think of their plans. Learn what they’ve got in mind for your neighborhood.
… and people wonder why Costa Rica is starting to look inviting…
LEGISLATIVE CHANGES??? NO!!!
April 10th, 2005
Transmission Omnibus Bills S.F. 1368 and H.F. 1344 have to be stopped.
Call today:
Sen. Ellen Anderson (651) 296-5537
Rep. Aaron Peterson (651) 296-4228
Call these groups and ask them about the deal they made, ask them to change their position, ask them to OPPOSE these bills:
* George Crocker, NAWO (651) 770-3861
* Bill Grant, Izaak Walton (651) 649-1446
The Attorney General has been working against this awful bill, and without that support, we?d be in utility heaven and citizen/ratepayer/taxpayer hell. Call Mike Hatch?s office and let him know you appreciate his work opposing an ATC style transmission company in Minnesota:
Mike Hatch, Attorney General
(651) 296-3353
800-657-3787
Call the Governor and tell him his bill is awful policy.
Gov. Tim Pawlenty
Problems with this bill
Many changes are proposed in MN regarding transmission. Most are utility giveaways, similar to the deal struck with TRANSLink, the Minnesota version with ATC. In 2003, the Izaak Walton League, ME3, North American Water Office and Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy agreed to let TRANSLink move forward without direct or indirect opposition, and to advocate for TRANSLink in other venues, which is what they?re doing here.
Don’t allow TRANSLink
Why is a TRANSLink/ATC transmission company a bad idea? Take a look at the PUC?s staff briefing papers about TRANSLink.
Don’t allow exemption from regulation
Other horrible ideas in this bill include exemptions from state review, which was the beginning of the problem with Arrowhead. No Minnesota state agency seriously looked at Arrowhead-Weston.
Don’t allow automatic rate adjustments
Another bad idea is that of giving utilities automatic cost recovery for transmission ?for renewables.? This is a bad idea because we learned in the SW MN 345kV proceeding that the state does not know how to tell if that?s what it is, and Xcel abuses this option. Xcel asked for automatic recovery on a long list of upgrades and construction projects it claimed were ?for wind? including the Ft. Calhoun Interface, and the Wilmarth line that?s been sagging for decades. When W.O.L.F.?s attorney challenged that claim at the PUC, Xcel withdrew that request.
Don’t allow “Regional Reliability” to define need
?Regional reliability? as a ?need? for transmission is a problem too ? we saw that claim made in Arrowhead, and we know we?re not freezing in the dark in an incubator without a job.
Good News about Landowner Compensation
The only good news is that we?re now talking about changes to the typical easement/condemnation scheme under which utilities acquire land for transmission. Proposed changes include annual royalty payments, and should include a provision of the ?Buy the Farm? option for all HVTL lines. S.F. 462 is the best option so far, and was recently introduced in the Senate Energy Committee. Call Senator Vickerman and tell him you appreciate his hard work for landowners, that “Buy the Farm” should apply to all High Voltage Transmission Lines, and that the landowner compensation should be separate from this horrible Transmission Omnibus Bill:
Sen. Jim Vickerman (651) 296-5650
It’s easy to get copies of proposed bills
Go to www.house.leg.state.mn.us Both Senate and House have an easy look up on the upper left hand side of the screen. Check out:
S.F. 1368 and H.F. 1344
Also compare the landowner compensation ideas offered in S.F. 462 and H.F. 1645 (Vickerman?s 462 is best).
Call your own legislators and let them know what you think too. For those of you along the Arrowhead route in Minnesota:
Rep. Mary Murphy (651) 296-2676
Sen. Tom Bakk (651) 296-8881
Senator Bakk is on the Senate Energy Committee!