Legalectric

How much can we take???  As if the Chisago Project wasn’t enough… here we go again…

The upcoming MISO list of transmission projects proposed has the following three items of interest to those in the Chisago area:

• Builds 345 kV circuit from Sherbourne County Station to Chisago County Station in Minnesota

• Builds 345 kV circuit from Hampton Corner Station to Chisago County Station in Minnesota

• Build 345 kV circuit from Chisago County Station in Minnesota to Longwood Station in Wisconsin

Here’s the short version:

Yellow-highlighted Chisago Projects to come

AAAAAAAAAAAGH!  I’ve got this tune floating through my brain… the hook line, “how can a poor man stand such times and live…”

Thanks to the little eagle-eyed birdie who sent this.

Yes, all this transmission we see, the hard to believe plans of superhighways across the country, MTEP, JCSP, Green Power Express, TrAIL line, Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway, Susquehanna-Roseland, on and on and on, it’s for coal, we know that, but when the truth jumps up and is as in-your-face as it is at this meeting… well, ya gotta read it to believe it.  From the FERC docket entitled PROMOTING REGIONAL TRANSMISSION PLANNING AND EXPANSION TO FACILITATE FUEL DIVERSITY INCLUDING EXPANDED USES OF COAL-FIRED RESOURCES (really, that’s the name…):

FERC Transcript 5/13/05

Here, from p. 61, is a tantalizing snippet from the Pres. of PJM:

PJM is certainly proud of what has been accomplished to date to open up markets to coal, but there is much more that we and others in this region can do to further enhance that use of coal.

It is for this reason that, today, PJM is setting out by example, a new initiative which we have labeled Project Mountaineer — appropriately titled for the state that we’re in — to utilize our regional transmission expansion planning process to explore ways to further develop an efficient transmission super highway, if you will, to deliver the low-cost coal resources in this region of the country, to market.

And to actually build it when people don’t want it over their land, don’t want to look at it, don’t want the EMF impacts?  Well, they say…

About the only answer to that would be some sort of federal siting law that would basically overcome local property rights.

National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors anyone?  This was in 2005… as the CapX Technical Report was about to be published, putting all of this into action… sigh….

To look up the entire docket, go HERE and search for AD05-3, and voila, there it is for your edification and reading enjoyment!

It’s all for coal, we know that, and we’ve got to NOT let them get away with this!

PPL gets earful at Saw Creek public hearing

Nearly 300 come out for Bushkill power line hearing

Bushkill power line hearings draw hundreds

Let’s take a look at their SEC filings!

PPL’s 2008 10-K

PSEG 2008 10-K

Some utility toady on commenting on one of the articles above suggested I buy PPL stock… right… good idea…

Last week, David Morris had a great transmission piece in Grist — I’ve been sick, in la-la-land, and am just catching up:

Grids and grids

A smart grid, yes. A new national grid, no.

Posted by David Morris (Guest Contributor) at 11:19 AM on 04 Mar 2009

The new mantra in energy circles is “national smart grid.”

In the New York Times, Al Gore insists the new president should give the highest priority to “the planning and construction of a unified national smart grid.” President Barack Obama, responding to a question by MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, declares that one of “the most important infrastructure projects that we need is a whole new electricity grid … a smart grid.”

Read the rest of this entry »

He says goodbye to Yucca Mountain, and in with a Federal Transmission bill — what a deal…

Yes, it’s that bad.  Call everyone…

Clean Renewable Energy and Economic Development Act as introduced

Here’s the DRAFT bill:

Senate Transmission Bill

CALL EVERYONE AND SAY “NO!”

One thing it would do that’s wrong-headed: If it’s claimed to be “for renewable” it’s presumed “needed.”  What’s wrong with that?

1) Rebuttable Presumption is a shift of the burden of proof.  On what basis?  DUE PROCESS RED FLAGS!

2) What about a commitment to any percentage of renewable changes whether it is needed or not, what about a percentage changes impacts on environment, property values or EMF or or or or or.  Electrons don’t care, cannot be ID’d as to generation, and impacts on environment and ratepayers remains the same no matter what’s on it.

3) FERC mandates that transmission be open to all comers — it pretends that it’s “for renewables” when FERC says transmission servces whoever is there, ready to interconnect.

4) What about need:

Nothing about “renewable” claim changes whether it is needed, whether there is a better way, whether those MW could be accomplished through conservation, through load shifting.
Nothing about “renewable” claim address whether renewables could be produced close to load, whether taking nonrenewables off near renewable site or in other locations would make room for renewables (maybe demonstrate this by taking a map with generation and xmsn on it, and highlight coal plants existing and in queue and how many MW there — you’ll see that’s where the transmission is planned)

5) Unreasonably favors that 70%, non-renewable, contrary to policy

6) RES – use of electricity is down, we don’t need MORE, instead we need to shift the percentages to a higher percentage of renewables.

(Maybe offer rebuttable presumption for renewable replacing coal generation and interconnecting at that site?  HA!)

Tell them “NO, OVER MY DEAD POLAR BEAR!”

… starting with that dreadful Sen. Amy Klobuchar:

Washington, DC

302 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
phone: 202-224-3244
fax: 202-228-2186

Metro Office

1200 Washington Avenue South, Suite 250
Minneapolis, MN 55415
Main Line: 612-727-5220
Main Fax: 612-727-5223
Toll Free: 1-888-224-9043