PATH transmission line WITHDRAWN!!!!
February 28th, 2011
The application for the Potomac Appalachian Transmission Highline, PATH, has been withdrawn. Notice was just sent out, not long after PJM issued a press release saying that PATH was “delayed.”
And here’s the one we’ve been waiting for, Potomac Edison’s Notice of Withdrawal (that didn’t take long!):
I’m looking on the PJM website, and can’t find the 2010 RTEP, so I call the number on the bottom of the Press Release, 866-756-6397, wanting to know where the 2010 RTEP is (one of the attorneys on the Susquehanna-Roseland line had asked about that, and I was stunned I couldn’t find it!!!), and when the 2011 RTEP is due out. No one can help, they’re in a meeting, “anyone that could help you is in a meeting.” Someone will call back… Uh-huh… right…
What they say is what we’ve been saying for how long?
PJM annually reviews its transmission expansion plans. A preliminary analysis suggests that the need for the line has moved further into the future. Therefore, the PJM Board has decided to hold the PATH project in abeyance in the 2011 Regional Transmission Expansion Plan (RTEP). The preliminary analysis used the most current economic forecasts, demand response commitments and potential new generation.
…
Over the last two years, the recession and the dramatic change in the economic outlook caused PJM to forecast lower growth in the use of electricity. Growth in the use of electricity correlates with economic growth. The forecasted slower growth rate likely will delay the need for the line.
So now, how to find that 2010 RTEP???
Xcel’s $$$ strategy approved
January 17th, 2011
This came up when our house deal was making life complicated, and then I was off in Colorado, so I didn’t get it posted, now it’s time to catch up!
Xcel went to the PUC for changes in its Capital Organization wiggle-room, and got what they wanted, with some additional reporting requirements.
What I’m noticing is that something like this that ‘s SO important, like the Otter Tail Power “Standstill Agreement,” and like the Otter Tail Power “Standstill Agreement,” there’s enviro silence. Nobody is on this… why?
Xcel Request – 2011 Capital Organization – Part I
Xcel Request – 2011 Capital Organization – Part II
Thankfully Bob Geiger, Finance & Commerce, was:
Utilities fielding $2B in projects for 2011
Posted: 5:17 pm Fri, January 7, 2011
By Bob GeigerWind, transmission line projects part of busy year for power providers
According to documents filed with the MPUC, Xcel plans to pay for the capital projects with short-term debt and multiyear credit agreements, a $300 million long-term debt issue in the third quarter and $190 million in cash.
Read the rest of this entry »
Transmission from La Veta, Colorado
January 12th, 2011
Above is my view of La Veta, Colorado. As I drove in, I saw two deer sauntering, yes, SAUNTERING across a farm field at the edge of town. And in town, they were just walking around like they owned the place, fat and happy. This one above was a buck escorting two of his does, maybe one and last year’s progeny, and they were walking down the streets, through yards, hanging out oh-so-casual.
There are some days, well, most days, I confess, when I really love my job… yesterday was another!
Yesterday was a forum held by TLC, Transmission Line Coalition, last night in La Veta and tonight in Alamosa:
Here’s some of what I had to say:
Xcel, of course, was there, and I’m sure they’ll be there tonight!
Here’s the ALJ Recommendation, this will sound very familiar to those in Minnesota:
As we say in transmission, “IT’S ALL CONNECTED.”
(Pretend there’s a link here to USDA’s RUS EIS page – it’s DOWN DOWN DOWN) NEVERMIND, it’s now UP UP UP! From RUS (note this San Luis project is about 4 months behind Dairyland/Capx:
Tri-State Generation and Transmission
San Luis Valley-Calumet-Comanche Transmission Project – Huerfona, Alamosa and Pueblo Counties, CO – The agency has decided to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement on this proposal; the original level-of-review was an Environmental Assessment.
- Federal Register Notice to hold Scoping Meeting and the intent to prepare an Environmental Assessment (August 3, 2009 – 47 KB)
- Calumet-Comanche Electric System Improvement Project – Macro Corridor Study (May 2009 – 24 MB MB)
- San Luis Valley-Calumet-Comanche Transmission Project – Alternatives Evaluation (June 2009 – 510 KB)
- San Luis Valley Electric System Improvement Project – Alternatives Evaluation and Macro Corridor Study (June 2008 – 14.2 MB)
- Public Scoping Report (November 16, 2009 – 28.6 MB)
What I want to know is WHY they are using lower capacity ACSR conductor for these projects — and the claimed “need” is SO low, why aren’t they just reconductoring the whole system — ACSR, euwwww, that is SO 1960s:
And demand forecasts? Need a good laugh? Here’s the sales forecast for Public Service of Colorado, our good friends at Xcel:
I’ve just learned that this area is mushroom country — methinks that this “forecaster” has been dabbling in some of the more exotic varieties to come up with this chart!
2010 NERC Reliability Assessment
December 29th, 2010
In prepping for the PPSA Annual Hearing , I realized that I’d forgotten to post the 2010 NERC Reliability Assessment. How can that be? NERC, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, has been issuing these for over a decade, and they have the greatest little gems, a must read that comes out usually in October.
SO, making up for lost time, here it is:
2010 NERC Reliability Assessment – Part 1
And here’s what I find to be the best part of this — the charts that show the reserve margins going out of sight!
Summer 2010 shows that we’re comfortable, plenty of electricity to go around. But wait, check the 2014 and 2019 projections — in 2019, where we “need” a 15% reserve margin, we have:
Anticipated Reserve Margin – 16.3%
Prospective Reserve Margin – 16.3%
Adjusted Potential Reserve Margin – 20.3%
Potential Reserve Margin – 28.0%
OK, so then let’s look at the East Coast for 2019:
New York
Anticipated Reserve Margin – 23.9%
Prospective Reserve Margin – 23.9%
Adjusted Potential Reserve Margin – 29.8%
Potential Reserve Margin – 53.3%
RFC– includes much of PJM – New Jersey, Delaware, and heading west
Anticipated Reserve Margin – 23.0%
Prospective Reserve Margin – 27.9%
Adjusted Potential Reserve Margin – 30.8%
Potential Reserve Margin – 37.2%
And again, the purpose of all this transmission build-out becomes clear — there’s too much electricity and they need a way to get it from here to there, anywhere to be able to sell it.
Click these charts below for a bigger view.
Estimated 2010 Summer Demand, Resources, and Reserve Margins:
Estimated 2014 Summer Demand, Resources, and Reserve Margins:
Estimated 2019 Summer Demand, Resources, and Reserve Margins:
Annual Hearing – Power Plant Siting Act
December 23rd, 2010
Mark 10:00 a.m. on December 28, 2010 on your calendar!
Notice – Additional Information – 2010 Annual Power Plant Annual Siting Act Hearing
10:00 a.m. Tuesday, December 28, 2010
PUC Large Hearing Room – 3rd Floor
121 – 7th Place E.
St. Paul, MN 55101
It happens once a year, the Annual Power Plant Siting Act Hearing, which is our opportunity to tell them a thing or two, specifically what works and does not work about the Power Plant Siting Act. If you’re affected by CapX 2020 transmission or other utility infrastructure, you sure know what DOESN’T work!!! This is the time to let them know in technicolor, and to put together your legislative agenda for the coming session.
What’s new here is that they’re holding it before Eric Lipman, Administrative Law Judge, and are soliciting comments on specific questions:
l. In Chapter 216E, the Legislature directs the Commission to locate large electric power
facilities so that any siting is orderly, efficient and compatible with environmental
preservation. How well do the Commission’s procedures and practices meet these
mandates?2. How well do the regulations found in Minnesota Rules Part 7850 meet the mandates of
Chapter 2l6E? Which rules, if any, should the Commission consider revising?
3. How well do the regulations found in Minnesota Rules Part 1405 meet the mandates of
Chapter 216E? Which rules, if any, should the Commission consider revising?
Comments are invited through presentation of oral or written statements.
Written statements may also be submitted to Judge Lipman by the close of business on February 1,2011 . I’ll post the email address they’re using for this after the hearing or if I get it sooner.
We’ve been doing this for a while, here are the notes and reports to EQB/PUC — where there are no “Summary” notes, there were none online. I’ve also noticed that the exhibits that the Reports say are attached are not, and yet if I go back to the docket, they are attached there (see 2007, taken from PUC eDockets, not Commerce site, which is missing the exhibits). To look at the full PUC eDocket for a particular year, look below for docket numbers, and then go to www.puc.state.mn.us and click “Search eDockets” and plug in the docket number.
2006 Report to PUC – Docket 06-1733
2007 Report to PUC – Docket 07-1579
2008 Report to PUC – Docket 08-1426
2009 Report to PUC – Docket 09-1351
Here’s the law that’s the basis for it:
216E.07 ANNUAL HEARING.
The commission shall hold an annual public hearing at a time and place prescribed by rule in order to afford interested persons an opportunity to be heard regarding any matters relating to the siting of large electric generating power plants and routing of high-voltage transmission lines. At the meeting, the commission shall advise the public of the permits issued by the commission in the past year. The commission shall provide at least ten days but no more than 45 days’ notice of the annual meeting by mailing or serving electronically, as provided in section 216.17, a notice to those persons who have requested notice and by publication in the EQB Monitor and the commission’s weekly calendar.
History: 1973 c 591 s 8; 1975 c 271 s 6; 1977 c 439 s 11; 1980 c 615 s 60; 1982 c 424 s 130; 1984 c 640 s 32; 2001 c 212 art 7 s 17; 2005 c 97 art 3 s 9; 2007 c 10 s 12