Hiawatha Transmission Project MOES Recommendation
May 18th, 2011
Xcel Energy’s Hiawatha Transmission Project moves forward.
Recently, Comments and Reply Comments were due in this “informal” Certificate of Need proceeding. All the intervening parties in the routing docket have been sitting on their hands, or worse (I hope not, but why the silence?). So when only MOES filed “Comments” I filed Reply Comments, because theirs were SOOOOO… soooooo… well, read them yourself, they’re in INITIAL comments recommending that the Certificate of Need be approved, shouldn’t they at least make it look better by waiting to see what comes in before declaring that it should be approved?!?!?! … and the basis, well, it’s just absurd:
Here’s what I filed — I don’t have a dog in the fight, no client, no direct interest, but I cannot stand it when there’s NO response, NO filings, it’s just not right, and that’s when I get twitchy that somebody is pulling a fast one, and others did join in:
Johnson – Reply Comment Attachment
City of Minneapolis and Hennepin County Reply Comments
And then MOES has the last word, complaining that Xcel’s aren’t allowed under the PUC Rules of Practice in Minn. R. ch 7829!
Xcel’s Hiawatha Transmission Project Comments Due
March 24th, 2011
Does anyone give a rodent’s rump about Xcel’s Hiawatha Project transmission project through Phillips?
Listen up! It’s time to Comment on what we all think the scope of the Environmental Report should be for Xcel Energy’s Hiawatha Project transmission line. What should be reviewed, what system alternatives should be considered (conservation, reconductor the distribution system at issue), demand side management (demand is DOWN, DUH!), solar on every roof of Phillips to follow peak load… , whether the size of the project (the specs) conform with the need they’re claiming, whether a power factor and distribution based need claim can and should be addressed with a big honkin’ transmission line, and how ’bout some realistic magnetic field modeling, ____________ (your issue here!).
Does anyone care?
Last week was the public meeting to solicit comments on the scope of environmental review, a meeting (NOT a hearing!) held by our friends at Minnesota Office of Energy Security – MOES:
COMMENTS ON THE SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT ARE OPEN UNTIL APRIL 6, 2011!
Send Comments to:
Bill Storm State Permit Manager Minnesota Office of Energy Security 85 7th Place East, Suite 500 St. Paul, Minnesota, 55101-2198 Fax: 651-297-7891 email: bill.storm@state.mn.us
More on Comments below… I couldn’t attend the public meeting because it was in the middle of the AWA Goodhue Wind evidentiary hearing, there was no way to do both. However, this is my old neighborhood, I spent 20 years in Prestigious East Phillips! I can’t stand the thought of this project ripping up Phillips…
To look at the dockets for this case, go to www.puc.state.mn.us and click “Search eDockets” and search for:
Hiawatha Project Routing Docket – 09-38
Hiawatha Project Certificate of Need Docket – 10-694
I’m concerned whether anyone cares, whether anyone is going to be weighing in on this, because the big intervenors in the routing case, Hennepin County, City of Minneapolis, and the Midtown Greenway Coalition have all pledged not to intervene:
Joint letter from Hennepin County, City of Minneapolis, and Midtown Greenway Coalition
Why would they say they’re not planning on intervening? Did they agree not to intervene? Why?
What does it mean if the large funded intervenors aren’t participating in the Certificate of Need docket?
Why does it matter if anyone intervenes in the Certificate of Need?
Well, it’s simple. This project isn’t needed. And in a Certificate of Need proceeding, the applicant has to prove up need. If it’s not needed, it doesn’t go forward. If you want to stop a project, force them to do it another way, the odds are a lot higher if you show up and participate in the Certificate of Need docket at the PUC. If not, well, you’re just sitting on the sidelines and stuck with whatever result happens while you’re not there. The moral to the story? SHOW UP!
During the Hiawatha Project’s PUC routing process, there were loud objections that this project was not needed, was not subject to a Certificate of Need, and should be. Rep. Karen Clark pushed through a bill requiring a Certificate of Need for this specific project:
So amid much breast-beating, this bill of Rep. Karen Clark was added to SF 3275 and became part of Ch 361. A Certificate of Need is now necessary for the Hiawatha Project.
But here’s the hilarious part — there was a $90,000 kicker to ???? some organization, to do neighborhood conservation and energy planning, $90,000, and that the project would go forward, it wasn’t hinged on the results of this “work.” The bill passes and goes on to the Gov. to be signed… SNORT… Pawlenty vetoed the $90,000 payout in the bill!
So now where are we? The money is gone… funding to a community group is pulled out from the bill. (And what community group would that be intended for… CERTS? … Xcel-funded Green Institute? What organizations have “experience in energy conservation and energy planning at the neighborhood level?”) Oh well, the project moves forward.
Next, Xcel applies for the Certificate of Need, which under this bill is not to proceed until after April 1, 2011, and now the scoping for the Environmental Report is held.
What is “scoping?” It’s when an agency collects comments and mulls it over and determines what all should be covered in environmental review. In this case, because it’s a “Certificate of Need” proceeding, system alternatives are at issue, in addition to the usual environmental suspects. And of course, a full disclosure of impacts is necessary, things like the expected range of magnetic fields. That’s a particularly prominent issue because in the routing docket, the Administrative Law Judge recommended that the Hiawatha Project be put underground due to exposure of local residents and workers to high levels of magnetic fields, higher than the threshold above which the World Health Organization would urge we exercise precaution. And of course, the reasonable levels are a lot higher than what they’re disclosing.
Before you work on your comments, take a look at what’s been posted as the “Draft” Scoping Decision:
And check out these magnetic field charts from the application – do these amp levels have any relation to the claimed need and the potential amps on the lines as spec’d?
WHAT DO YOU THINK SHOULD BE ADDRESSED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT?
COMMENTS ON THE SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT ARE OPEN UNTIL APRIL 6, 2011!
Send Comments to:
Bill Storm State Permit Manager Minnesota Office of Energy Security 85 7th Place East, Suite 500 St. Paul, Minnesota, 55101-2198 Fax: 651-297-7891 email: bill.storm@state.mn.us
Overland files rulemaking petition with OAH
March 11th, 2011
Oh there she goes again…
Overland has filed a rulemaking petition with the Office of Administrative Hearings to hopefully address some of the inconsistencies of the rules, and interpretation of the rules, by Administrative Law Judges handling cases for the Public Utilities Commission.
Why? Because it is SO hard for people to participate in these dockets, and the rules and the way they’re interpreted make it even harder, and are not in conformance with the Power Plant Siting Act’s requirement to make public participation a priority.
Coming soon – ones covering the issues at PUC and MOES that occur over and over and over and over and over…
MAPP line goes for FEDERAL LOAN GUARANTEES
March 7th, 2011
Remember the Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway?
A while back, PEPCO or PHI, announced that they would not be moving forward with this project.
Lower energy production puts brakes on powerlines – News Journal January 24, 2010
Now they’re going for DOE federally guaranteed loans… funny how that works. A project that is delayed and delayed because it is NOT needed, that they are NOT willing to finance on their own, that they can’t or won’t get market financing for it, that they can’t or won’t finance themselves, and so now they want federal financing? Sounds like the DOE needs some lessons from Fannie Mae about financing outrageous and unsupportable projects!
Thinking about this, and what that pro forma must look like, I called the DOE rep about getting a copy of the loan application. Seems it’s not online and it’s not public and I’m going to have to do a FOIA request to get it, and that it will be redacted. OK, whatever… will keep you all posted about that!
Here are the official notices of the financing arrangement and the scoping meetings:
And Pepco’s MAPP site has the announcement on their “Events” page:
The public hearings are as follows:
Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Presentation of Project Description & Oral Comments: 7:00 pm
Place: Holiday Inn Express – Prince Frederick
355 Merrimac Court
Prince Frederick, MD 20678Date: Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Presentation of Project Description & Oral Comments: 7:00 pm
Place: Cambridge-South Dorchester High School
2475 Maple Dam Road
Cambridge, MD 21613Date: Thursday, March 24, 2011
Presentation of Project Description & Oral Comments: 7:00 pm
Place: Indian River Senior Center
214 Irons Ave
Millsboro, DE 19966
Be there or be square!
Xcel’s 2010 10-K is out!
February 28th, 2011
Yes, you know you’re one sick puppy when you get excited about those SEC alerts in the inbox! Xcel’s 2010 10-K has been filed:
Check p. 11 for the Peak Demand info – yes, it’s up a bit, but we’re lower than 2005, and there’s a long ways to go to the peak in 2006:
Peak demand is not exactly what we should be planning for these days, well, probably anytime, because peak is so rare, and they just try to sell that excess in the valleys, not that there’s a market anywhere else either!