Legalectric

A couple days ago, Judge Heydinger, who is presiding in the Xcel Hiawatha Transmission Project routing docket, issued an Order to Show Cause, demanding they comply or be booted out of the proceeding!

Here’s the March 29, 2010 Order to Show Cause

There were two problems that just shouldn’t go unchallenged.  First, she PRESUMES need, by ordering, in a Prehearing Order, that Intervening parties choose their “preferred route.”

Here’s the December 7, 2009 Prehearing Order

HUH?  “PREFERRED ROUTE” presumes that the route is needed, it requires parties to say “Stick it THERE!” which pits communities against each other, pits interests against other interests, it is just not right.  Why?  It’s going a step too far, it’s putting the cart before the north end of a horse headed south.  Need has not been proven in this case.  There is no Certificate of Need.  Heydinger’s presumption of need shows bias and prejudice in favor of Xcel.  It shows acceptance that the design of this project as proposed, the size, type and timing, is appropriate.  It shows acceptance of the proposer’s claim that this is the full project, which is contrary to studies revealed in Discovery and out in the public realm (on this blog, too!).   None of this has been demonstrated or found as fact in this docket.  There is no basis in the record or in law for that presumption.

And then, the following day, she issued a “letter” (not an Order) about “Hearing Arrangements” requiring that each intervening party be present every day, EVERY day, for the Evidentiary Hearing that’s likely to last three weeks.

Here’s the March 30, 2010 Letter – Hearing Arrangements

This hearing may be a bit much (compared to Arrowhead WI with 37 intervenors and 63 witnesses???) but imagine what it’s like for the Intervenors who are not funded, not represented, struggling along as best they can.

To see the full Hiawatha Transmission Project docket, go to www.puc.state.mn.us and then “Search eDockets” and then search for docket 09-38.

The rules say that “any PERSON” can file an affidavit of prejudice to disqualify a judge, so I did:

Overland Affidavit and Exhibits

So my question for all the Intervenors already in this — why are you all just sitting silent and letting these Orders and presumptions go unchallenged?

Here is information about what generation projects are in line waiting for interconnection, and keep in mind that this is the MISO queue, and part of Illinois, and a big part of the load, is in PJM.

Here’s where you get the queue, and download to Excel and it’s sortable by state, by fuel
CLICK HERE FOR MISO QUEUE LINK — it’s updated regularly

Here are a couple of spreadsheets, the MISO queue downloaded in Excel as of March 25, 2010:

MISO Queue – ENTIRE – as of 3/25/10

Illinois Queue – as of 3/25/10

Just for yucks, look at the Illinois Queue – as of 3-25
Sheet 1 is everything listed for Illinois (they list by state, column H)
Sheet 2 is for generation interconnection of projects where fuel is identified as “wind”

THERE IS 9,853.3MW OF WIND IN QUEUE IN ILLINOIS.

The links in columns S, T & U are the transmission studies showing what can be connected, what the system can bear, and what improvements would need to be made.  Check them out for some fun reading.

Now, all of you thinking about transmission, and the moronic ox of “transmission for wind,” think about this please — why would anyone near Illinois, and why would anyone way out east, want to pay for wind generation from the Dakotas via transmission?  Buying the power generated in the Dakotas means that you’d have to pay for:

• Cost of Energy
• Capital cost of transmission
• Cost of transmission service
• Cost of line losses (energy lost in transit due to resistance — greater loss over greater distance)
• Cost of reactive power (transmission over long distances sucks reactive power out of the system and requires input for system stability)

As Minnesota Public Service Commissioner David Boyd noted when testifying before the Legislative Energy Commission last year (jointly with MOES and MISO!!!), he was talking about transmission, and he is Chair of Upper Midwest Transmission Development Initiative, a conflict if there ever were one.  Anyway, he said, and it was in writing on the slide:

We need a business plan.

That’s encouraging, because he apparently realizes that the above equation does not make any business sense.

That is the most important part of this issue — and the pell-mell hell-bent push for transmission.  WHY?

Why would anyone in Illinois want to pay when it’s right there in Illinois, and the offshore wind hasn’t even begun?  NREL has targeted Illinois as a wind production state, and… well.. DUH, what’s Chicago’s nickname after all???

Why would anyone out east want to pay for transmission of wind, on land a 41% capacity factor at best, to have it shipped 2,000 miles and pay BILLIONS to build that transmission, pay cost of transmission service, and pay cost of line losses, and cost of reactive power?

.

And the pitch?  Nothing new, just RE-AMP toadying for utilities, but I’m waiting for Howard “The Slow” Learner to prove me right, again… and to see how far they go to promote transmission.

April 20 & 21st is Learner’s/Environmental Law & Policy Center‘s and RE-AMP’s “invitation only” transmission strategy workshop, at their office in Chicago, and I surmise much about their goal and strategy based on my many past experiences with transmission promoters.  This meeting is very unlike the Sierra Club transmission strategy meeting in West Virginia last spring, a great group of people who understand the purpose of transmission, were actively engaged in fighting it and who have been successful in slowing down that big web of 500kV/765kV lines known as Project Mountaineer.   Here in the Midwest, it’s a little different.  An example:

The ELPC has also been working with the South Dakota Energy Infrastructure Authority to develop and expand transmission lines across South Dakota. They will also work with neighboring states to develop new approaches for more transmission. The available wind energy in South Dakota is far greater than the state’s electricity needs, so the ability to move this power out of the state is crucial.

What is ELPC doing to develop and expand transmission?  Transmission lines across South Dakota moving this power out of state means it comes into Minnesota — funny how that works.  What is ELPC doing about the coal plants in queue in the Dakotas?

What is the goal of ELPC’s invitation-only Transmission Strategy Meeting?

Anyway, it was no surprise to me — Learner saw I was on the list and has slammed the door in my face!  Imagine that!  SNORT!  It seems that people with a lot of working knowledge of transmission, knowledge of history, and knowledge of the parties involved are not welcome.  Specifics on this meeting are below.

Don’t drop the ball, Howard!  Will Howard Learner and ELPC be the utilities’ water boy for transmission that’s planned stretching from the Midwest to the East Coast or acknowledge that more big transmission is not needed or wanted?  And why would anyone want to advocate for transmission to the East Coast if the East Coast doesn’t want it?  Will they respect the East Coast’s solid “NO!” to Midwest transmission?  How ethno-geo-centric will they be?

Here are a few posts with links to the primary documents of NYISO & ISO-NE, NY’s Deputy Secretary of Energy, the 10 Mid-Atlantic Governors letter, etc.

DUH… eastern states don’t want our transmission

Offshore transmission, NOT transmission from Midwest

Eastern Governors stand up against Transmission!!!

The windup?  Today’s Chicago Tribune has a disturbing article about transmission, foreshadowing the meeting three weeks from now:

Putting wind generated power where it’s needed

For example, from the article:

In order to integrate and move that alternative power east through Illinois, the grid would have to be expanded and upgraded, say transmission experts and utility companies.

The estimated cost to move that wind power east could range from $64 billion to $93 billion in 2009 dollars and would require 17,000 to 22,000 miles of transmission lines to be built in the eastern half of the country alone, according to the Eastern Wind Integration and Transmission Study (EWITS) published in January and prepared for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Just a reminder, Matt Schuerger who worked on this EWITS (or “nitwits”) study is the same one who, together with Beth Soholt, asked me and several others to sell out on the SW MN 345kV line.  At that time, he was at ME3 (after a stint at District Energy) and is listed as a consultant on Izaak Walton 990s, and Beth Soholt, Izaak Walton League (formerly of MAPP).  FYI – Wind on the Wires is a GRANT, not an organization — it’s listed on the Izaak Walton 990s as a “program” despite having a Minnesota non-profit established (CLICK HERE for Secretary of State link).  From May, 2001 NWCC minutes:

Matt Schuerger is, in 2022, a 2nd term Commissioner at Minnesota PUC (notice his bio doesn’t mention his working for Waltons, ME3/Fresh Energy, and Wind on the Wires!).

2008-Izaak Walton League 990

2007-Izaak Walton League 990

2006-Izaak Walton League 990

2005-Izaak Walton League 990

2004-Izaak Walton League 990

Color me naive, I really didn’t have a clue (other than the enviros’ obscene deal on Prairie Island in 1994) until that meeting in question, it was on or about Sept. 8, 2001, when Beth and Matt asked about 6-7 of us who were likely intervenors in that docket to sell out.   “What would you need to approve of this line?” (the SW MN 345kV line, PUC Docket 01-1958).  I asked what they were getting and what they’d share, and what they were getting was pissy and they got pissier the more questions I asked, particularly Matt, who made empty threats about walking out — DUH, please, leave!  The most important question they didn’t address was, “What about the big long list of coal in queue on p. 29 of the study, waiting for the transmission that they were promoting?”  Defensive pissyness, unwillingness to address the big picture, and silence.  Schuerger and Soholt, they were so B Squad about it that afternoon at the Loring Cafe, Dinkytown, in 2001.  That was the year that “Wind on the Wires” got $4.5 million to promote transmission.  That amount was ramped up for the next grant, and the focus of their deal became clear when one agreement was posted on the TRANSLink docket.  A o coupfle days later, “Wind on the Wires”  got an Energy Foundation/McKnight grant of $8.1 million.  $8.1 MILLION! Hmmmmm…

The Energy Foundation/McKnight funded and orchestrated promotion of transmission has been shameless, as bad as the enviro support for coal gasification, their transmission efforts ranging from attempts to gain endorsement of the regional SEED group (organizations that as a whole knew nothing about transmission) to legislative “it’s a deal, a package deal and it’s a good deal” changes desired by utilities, to NWCC “concensus building” to supportive intervention in transmission dockets.  That agenda continues despite clear evidence that midwest transmission supports coal, our RES that does not link an increase in renewables with a decrease in coal, MISO policy that has a goal of displacing natural gas with coal (see “Conclusions” in ICF – Midwest ISO Benefits Analysis) , and decreased demand and a conservation mandate, such that transmission is not needed now and probably not needed ever.  Whose interests are these organizations acting in?  Their interests, their funders’ interests.  Where’s consideration of the public interest?

What did they agree to back then?  Here’s one example that’s public:

Settlement Agreement – ME3(Fresh Energy), Izaak Walton League, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, North American Water Office

Take a closer look at “Wind on the Wires” that is a subset of the Izaak Walton League.  Do members and chapters of the Izaak Walton League have a clue what this organization is advocating?  Though there is a Minnesota “non-profit” registered, as above, it remains a “program” on the Izaak Walton League IRS 990s and Beth Soholt is an employee of the Waltons.  From the website, here’s the address, same as the Waltons:

Office Location

Wind on the Wires
1619 Dayton Avenue, Suite 203
St Paul, MN 55104
(651) 644-3400

Their list of  WOW Staff and Consultants:

Beth Soholt
Director, Wind on the Wires

Linda Brewster
Administrative Associate, Wind on the Wires

Matthew Schuerger, P.E.
Technical Consultant

Natalie McIntire
Technical/Policy Consultant

And take a look at who is on the board of “Wind on the Wires”, why the whole family is there:

Board Members
R.T. “Hap” Boyd
GE Energy

Hans Detweiler
American Wind Energy Association

Joe DeVito
RES – Americas

Tom Feiler
Clipper Windpower

Richard Free
John Deere Wind Energy

Bob Gough
Intertribal Council on Utility Policy

Ian Krygowski
enXco

Howard Learner
Environmental Law and Policy Center

Kevin Lynch
IBERDROLA RENEWABLES

Michael Vickerman
RENEW Wisconsin

(And would you look at that, Rick Free?!?!  Too funny — I’ve got to tell Nancy Prehn what Rick Free is up to since we killed his Simon Industries gas plant in Waseca!)

And the pitch:

The ELPC Midwest Transmission Strategy Meeting.  The shameless Energy Foundation funded (and is this also McKnight Foundation funded?)  and orchestrated promotion of transmission continues.  First, on March 5th this appeared in my inbox:

Colleagues –

1.  We appreciate the Energy Foundation’s grant support to cover reasonable travel/hotel costs for individuals and organizations that may need assistance in order to attend this important regional meeting.

2.  Please call/email Kay Tamillow at ELPC (312-795-3709, ktamillow@elpc.org) for information on the favorable hotel rate that ELPC has obtained and to make reservations.

3.  Please RSVP to attend if you’re interested and have not yet done so.

Best wishes,

Howard
———————————

Midwest/Great Plains Environmental, Clean Energy and Consumer Colleagues,

Please join us for a Midwest Transmission Strategy Meeting on April 20 (dinner) and April 21 (full day), 2010 in Chicagoat the Environmental Law & Policy Center’s conference space, 35 East Wacker Drive.  New major interstate transmission lines in the Midwest/Great Plains are a double-edged sword:  On the one hand, they can provide additional needed delivery capacity for wind power and other new renewable energy development; on the other hand, they can provide enabling delivery capacity and lifelines of support for the continued operation of old highly-polluting coal plants.  We will be developing strategies to advance the former and avoid the latter.  We will also address important cost-allocation issues for new transmission.  Please RSVP to Kay Tamillow at ktamillow@elpc.org or 312-795-3709.  More info to follow on hotel, etc.

The purposes of the strategy meeting are to: (1) Bring together Midwest environmental, clean energy and consumer leaders to learn together and get up-to-speed on key transmission strategy and policy issues, (2) Set the strategic framework for what types of transmission lines we will support and which not, and what we can and should do through advocacy; and (3) Initiate strategic discussions and actions on high-leverage transmission advocacy targets in the Midwest/Great Plains states.

The importance of new transmission capacity to support wind power development is relatively clear. There is a less obvious and equally important goal of relating transmission advocacy to spur the retirement of old, highly-polluting coal plants in the Midwest/Great Plains states. There is a very important set of strategic leverage points because of the structure of the Midwest/Great Plains power market in 2010 – 2020.

The framework for the agenda is as follows below. We will distribute a final agenda closer to the meeting date.

April 20th, 5:30 pm. – 8:30 pm:
Dinner Meeting and Briefing with wind industry and transmission line developers presenting.

April 21st, 8:30 am – 4:30 pm:
Morning: Strategy briefing and short course on key transmission issues and opportunities for environmental, clean energy and consumer advocates.

Afternoon: Strategy planning and discussion on: (1) Engagement/intervention in key policymaking forums: FERC, MISO, State PUCs, Public Outreach; and (2) Focus on Pros/Cons and potential challenges to particular transmission line proposals in Midwest/Great Plains region.

The agenda planning group includes:

Citizens Utility Board (Illinois) – David Kolata
Energy Foundation – David Wooley and Ben Paulos
Environmental Law & Policy Center – Howard Learner and John Moore
Fresh Energy – Michael Noble
Kresge Foundation – Lois DeBacker
Michigan Environmental Council – James Clift
Wind on the Wires – Beth Soholt

Please RSVP to Kay Tamillow at ktamillow@elpc.org or 312-795-3709.  More info to follow on hotel, etc. ELPC is working to obtain foundation support to cover reasonable travel costs for individuals and organizations that may need assistance.  Please indicate in your response if you will need reimbursement of reasonable travel costs.

We all understand the strategic importance of this meeting and the issues to be discussed. Thank you in advance for you participation and engagement. Please let me know if you have any questions or suggestions.

Best wishes,

Howard

Howard A. Learner
Executive Director
Environmental Law & Policy Center
35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 1300
Chicago, Illinois 60601
email:  HLearner@elpc.org
phone: (312) 673-6500
Please visit ELPC’s website at www.elpc.org

And of course knowing what they’re up to, I signed right up right after I got it, and Alan did too.   We’re all set!  Then, on the 16th, I get this, from Howard Learner:

Howard Learner wrote:

Carol and Alan,

I’m writing to let you know that the Transmission Strategy Meeting on April 20-21 is a “by invitation only” strategy session among a group of directly invited environmental – clean energy – consumer colleagues, rather than an open conference or seminar event.  Members of the planning group for this particular strategy session have asked that we limit attendees to those directly invited.  Although my assistant Kay Tamillow did receive your RSVP, we’ll ask that you not plan to attend.

Thank you for understanding,

Howard

Howard A. Learner
Executive Director
Environmental Law & Policy Center
35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 1300
Chicago, Illinois 60601
email: HLearner@elpc.org
phone: (312) 673-6500
Please visit ELPC’s website at www.elpc.org

So here’s my response to Howard’s email:

Howard –

Interesting — I  think I understand some things and don’t understand others. I do know that I am thinking that the “plan” is getting more and more interesting…

The Sierra Club had an excellent transmission strategy planning meeting in West Virginia last spring of those intervening in transmission dockets, attorneys, expert witnesses, and advocates from both coasts regarding their focused and effective efforts. I think I shall regard your missive as confirmation that your strategic plan and goal is quite different from that of Sierra.

But many questions remain…

Carol A. Overland
Attorney representing clients in transmission cases across the country for 15 years now

We’ll see how this goes!

It’s my old neighborhood, and I just had to put my $0.02 in:

Overland Comments – Hiawatha DEIS

Exhibit A – NM-SPG – July 24, 2008

Exhibit B – NSP Petition for CFSR

Exhibit C – NSP/Taylors Falls/St. Croix Falls Agreement

Exhibit D – Chisago County Resolution re: Facilities Surcharge Rider

Exhibit E – Comments of Power Line Task Force – Docket 99-799

Exhibit F – Conductor Specs – from PUC Docket 01-1958, Ex 35 Application, Appendix 7

Exhibit G – Edison Institute – Transmission Property Values Report

Exhibits D and E, oh my, time flies… I’d completely forgotten about those.  And the utilities keep singing the same old tired songs…

AVA Goodhue Wind has applied for a Certificate of Need and a Routing permit, and there are two Power Purchase Agreement dockets open at the PUC.  To see what’s been filed:

1. Go to www.puc.state.mn.us
2. Click on “Search eDockets“
3. Search for:

• 08-1233 – Wind Siting Permit
• 09-1186 – Certificate of Need
• 09-1349 – Power Purchase Agreement
• 09-1350 – Power Purchase Agreement

The EIS Scoping Meeting was held by the MN Dept. of Commerce MOES last Thursday, and here’s the report from the Red Wing Republican Beagle:

Published March 05 2010

Weighing in on wind

MAZEPPA – Larry Hartman threw a question out to the large crowd gathered Thursday to learn and comment about a proposed 52-turbine wind farm in rural Goodhue.

“What is wind?” the Minnesota Office of Energy Security staffer asked.

Mumbles from the crowd highlighted what has divided some neighbors and friends the past few years since wind energy companies came knocking, offering landowners money to house turbines.

“An investment.”

“Energy.”

“A scam.”

More than 30 residents provided a wide variety of opinions and comments during a three-hour meeting to gather input for an environmental review required as part of AWA Goodhue’s certificate of need application filed with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission.

The company, managed by National Wind, also has filed a site permit application with the PUC, the state agency that handles such large-sale projects.

Some Goodhue County residents remain skeptical of the proposed 32,000-acre project that some of their neighbors and wind energy company advocates say will stimulate the area’s economy and help the state meet renewable energy demands.

Hundreds of project opponents – dubbed Goodhue Wind Truth – have submitted a petition to the Goodhue County Board asking for a “safe renewable energy plan.”

The petition asks commissioners to implement a one-half mile setback between wind turbines and homes to help reduce the health and safety threats residents say turbines pose.

“The safety and health of people is a priority over money,” said Steve Groth, a Belle Creek Township landowner and member of Goodhue Wind Truth. “The government is there to protect you. When you sidestep that issue, everything falls apart.”

Economic opportunity

Chuck Burdick, senior wind developer with National Wind, said his company’s project will bring 100 to 200 jobs to the area during construction and two to five permanent jobs.

He said leaseholders and participants will receive more than $20 million over the life of the project.

“We think that’s a significant economic injection into the area,” Burdick said.

Some area landowners agree.

They say harvesting wind gives farmers another way to supplement their income and that wind energy is another part of the changing rural lifestyle.

Larry Fox, a Belle Creek Township landowner, said he hears the hum of corn driers and can smell manure when the wind blows just right.

“I don’t complain,” he said. “We just adapt and know this is a farm community.”

Fox said he would receive $30,000 over the next 20 years for housing a wind turbine.

“That’s a tremendous amount of revenue for these small communities,” Fox said. “I think revenue outweighs a lot of factors here.”

Other farmers say they’re excited to house alternative energy on their land.

Sara Linker Nord lives in Minneola Township and has land in AWA Goodhue’s project footprint. She said she found the wind turbines just outside Palm Springs, Calif., “aesthetically pleasing and majestic” and was disappointed when she found out others did not feel the same.

“It gives farms another crop with little land loss,” she said. “Alternative energy created on American soil increases our energy independence.”

Health concerns

But opponents argue the dangers associated with wind turbines outweigh any alleged financial benefits.

“When you put these turbines up and call yourself and environmentalist, I’d like you to do some soul searching,” said Tom Schulte, a rural Goodhue County landowner who said he recently built a geothermally heated and cooled energy efficient home.

“Because you’re probably not doing it for the environment, you’re doing it because you’re profiting.”

Schulte and other opponents said the environment and rural landscape are at risk if wind energy is not developed properly and responsibly. Livestock, water supplies, agricultural land, bald eagles and other birds need to be protected and studies need to be completed to analyze wind farm impacts, several residents told state officials.

Opponents also argue the state-required setbacks between homes and turbines are not great enough to minimize safety and health issues associated with turbine shadow flicker and noise.

Minnesota law requires a minimum 500-foot setback from residences or the state noise standard, whichever is greater. Minnesota’s noise standard restricts wind turbines from exceeding 50 decibels at night.

In practice, meeting that standard often means placing wind turbines at distances of 700 to 1,200 feet, according to a recent report by the Minnesota Department of Health.

The DOH’s scientific study found that noise from wind turbines “generally is not a major concern for humans beyond a half-mile or so,” because of design innovations to reduce noise.

Goodhue Wind Truth members want at half-mile setbacks. AWA Goodhue is doing voluntary 1,500-foot setbacks (just over one-quarter mile) from non-participating residents, Burdick said.

Zumbrota Mayor Richard Bauer also asked state officials to consider two-mile setbacks from Zumbrota and Goodhue’s corporate limits to make sure the cities are able to grow in an “orderly manner.”

Comments for the environmental report will be accepted until March 26. They can be sent to Larry Hartman, Minnesota Department of Commerce, 85 Seventh Place E. Suite 500, St. Paul, MN 55101. Comments can be sent by e-mail to larry.hartman@state.mn.us.