Legalectric

It’s out, hot off the press:

BPU Susquehanna-Roseland Order

I feel a Motion for Reconsideration coming on…

What’s most disturbing about this project is that it’s just a small part of something much bigger that is laid out in the 2007 Biennial Transmission Plan, in their studies, stretching from a new “Cleveland” 345kV substation and line to the new “Hiawatha” substation, and from there, a 115kV line to the “new” Oakland/Midtown substation and down to a new “Penn Lake” substation (I remember one on Penn and 62 decades ago) and then to Wilson, which they admit had been recently upgraded and there’s room for expansion.

Here’s two pages of Chapter 7 of the 2007 Biennial Transmission Plan regarding this part of the world:

South Mpls Load Serving Study

Plus they admit that the Hiawatha substation is planned with 50MVA transformers and room/plans for two more!  Tripling capacity, at Hiawatha, to 150MVA.   At Oakland, there’s “only” room for one more, the first is 70MVA and the expansion room/plan is for one more 70MVA, totaling 140 MVA.

From the Xcel Application, a chart regarding Land Use Trends:

Let’s see… what uses more electricity, Industrial (anyone remember Minneapolis Moline?) or Residential?  Honeywell or Wells Fargo Mortgage?

Look what they’re using as their basis:

July 2006???  This is from their Hiawatha Application, Appendix D3, the South Minneapolis Electric Distribution Delivery System Long Term Study:

(Can’t get it now — says file is damaged)

Having looked through their studies, I don’t see any reason to not upgrade the distribution system and see where that leaves us, given that we’re in this depression.

An indication of how much ground we’ve lost over the last 30 years…

Wednesday I filed to have Judge Heydinger disqualified:

Overland Affidavit and Exhibits

And today, summarily denied:

Order – not an April Fools joke!

Here are a few snippets, well, the meat of it:

With respect to the allegation that ALJ Heydinger has restricted public participation in this hearing, the Chief Administrative Law Judge finds that Ms. Overland has not demonstrated bias. Minn. R. 1405.1400 states that “the administrative law judge shall indicate the procedural rules for the hearing.” In her prehearing orders, ALJ Heydinger has indicated the procedural rules and has not restricted any member of the public from presenting evidence or argument, nor has she prevented any person from being represented by counsel. What she has done is provide for procedures that will allow a complex, multi-party hearing to be held in an orderly and timely manner.

Specifically, ALJ Heydinger has set rules for parties to this action with respect to cross-examination at the hearing. Minn. R. 1405.1400 allows the ALJ to determine the sequence of cross-examination. The ALJ has in no way limited the right of the public to appear or present testimony. In attempting to set orderly and timely procedural rules for testimony and cross-examination by parties, the ALJ is not “raising the bar” for the public.

All parties in every case are expected to be present during the entire hearing.  This is a reasonable and very standard requirement. This requirement is for the protection of the rights of the parties. In order for them to follow the proceeding and have the opportunity for cross-examination, they must be present. Nevertheless, ALJ Heydinger has recognized that since there are so many parties to this matter some may not be able to be present at all times. She has, therefore, allowed the parties to request a leave to be absent if necessary.

Ummmmmmm, aren’t parties members of the public with a specific interest in the proceeding?

And this regarding bias and prejudice regarding “need” for the transmission line:

The other claim of bias is based in the alleged “determination of need” for the transmission project by ALJ Heydinger. As pointed out in Ms. Overland’s affidavit, this is not a Certificate of Need Hearing. The Notice and Order for Hearing issued by the Public Utilities Commission on June 2, 2009, identified the issues in this matter as whether the proposed high voltage transmission line met the routing criteria set out in Minn. Stat. § 216E.03.  ALJ Heydinger has not made any determinations or recommendations with respect to any aspect of the substance of this case at this point. She has, as is proper in a route case, asked parties to indicate in their pre-filed testimony what their preferred route is.  Requesting this information does not constitute a determination of need by the ALJ.  Nothing in the pre-hearing orders prevents the public or the parties from expressing their views on the need for this transmission project.

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?