A little birdie told me that the Comment period on the Green Power Express rate docket at FERC has been extended to March 6, a week from now.

To find the FERC docket (maybe there’s a quicker way, but this is all I know so far…), CLICK HERE and search for docket ER09-681.

The filing is just too big to upload, but you can see the redacted version here:

Green Power Express FERC Rate Filing

What they’re wanting to do is stick their Construction Work In Progress (CWIP) into the rate base… they want to be able to charge us for this, for putting this together!?!?!  “Who” is the rate base in this, what are the costs, at what point could they be assessed?

I’m struggling to wrap my pea brain around this, but I’m wondering what the difference is between this and what Xcel got in the 2005 Transmission Omnibus Bill from Hell, other than a much wider rate base:

Minn. Stat. 216B.16, Subd. 7b

The rate base that ITC Holdings could spread this over is immense, as opposed to Minnesota’s utilities’ rate base, and the idea of paying for development of this phenomenally stupid idea just galls me… but I’ve got some reading and thinking to do here.   Intervenors are lining up to weigh in and fight about it.

And then there’s that 7,000MW of wind in the MISO queue in Illinois, and it’s the Chicago transfer numbers they want to keep secret.  Shouldn’t someone tell them that there’s all that wind in Illinois?

I’m printing out this sucker for a winter night’s read…

Check it out — what do you think?

Tomorrow a.m., at too early o’clock, there’s a “Breakfast with Gary” panel discussion on Xcel’s Hiawatha Project.  Gary Schiff is the 9th ward council rep, here’s the map. Xcel’s proposed Hiawatha Project runs right through the heart of the district — their preferred route is the Midtown Greenway — great, wonderful idea — whatever are they thinking?!?!?!

Moi is on the agenda, so I’ll be up at “even more too early o’clock” to get there, and from the looks of it outside, Ken and Krie might get hitched to a sled.  Snow is letting up, and the guy across the street in Wadley’s old house is blowing snow.

Breakfast with Gary Schiff

Panel discussion of Xcel Energy’s Hiawatha Project

Friday, February 27
7:30 to 9 a.m.
Mercado Central
1515 East Lake Street
Bloomington and Lake in Minneapolis
(remember Antiques Minnesota?)

Be there or be square!!

Ever wonder what’s wrong with this electric grid that too many are spending too much time to fix?  As in, “If it’s not broke, don’t fix it!”  Here’s an article sent by Ann Rasmussen, of Dorchester Citizens for Safe Energy, fighting the Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway, that gives the best and most concise statement of the problem that I’ve found.  Grappling with this will give you a solid context for understanding all the transmission proposals criss-crossing the US that we’ve seen lately.

What’s Wrong With The Grid

From What’s Wrong with the Grid?

EEEEEEEEEEE-HA!

OH HAPPY DAY!!!!

A victory for states’ rights, for state decision-making authority and jurisdiction over transmission lines.  The National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor designation has been horrifying to many of us because the talk on the street was that the rules allowed transfer to FERC where a state was “withholding” granting a permit.  That was being interpreted as broadly as a state denial — that if a state reasonably denied a permit for transmission, the applicant could then take it to FERC and get it rammed through.  So it went to court…

AND THE COURT SAID NO!

NO!

Like wow…

Piedmont v. FERC 4th Circuit Decision

It’s printing now, and I’ll find some choice snippets.  This is such a relief, but I doubt the utilities will let this go unchallenged — onward and upward!

More transmission – again in the Wall Street Journal.

Hard to tell which of the alphabet soups this article is about, and I’d say both, it’s about the Joint Coordinated System Plan and the Upper Midwest Transmission Development Initiative — UMDTI! But we know it’s all one and the same.

The article doesn’t really specifically name either “group” and it leaves us wondering just who or what is behind it.  This is a good thing — yes, it really is as amorphous as it sounds! What disturbs me, of course, is the “It’s for wind,” because we know better!

New Grid for Renewable Energy Could Be Costly

FEBRUARY 9, 2009

By REBECCA SMITH

A substantial increase in the amount of electricity produced from renewable energy would require building a transmission system that would carry a price tag of up to $100 billion, according to a new study.

The new system would be needed because the existing eastern grid couldn’t handle the volume of power coming from the wind-producing states. In addition, the new grid would need to be able to handle the fluctuating nature of wind power, which can surge at some moments and drop sharply at others.

There is strong political and public support for increasing production of renewable energy, and Congress is considering enacting a nationwide standard that would require utilities to garner more of their power from renewable sources. However, there is only an emerging understanding of how new standards would affect the country’s existing electricity infrastructure.

The study, sponsored by some of the nation’s biggest grid-running organizations east of the Rockies, is the most comprehensive attempt by the industry to figure out what kind of infrastructure upgrades would be needed if the U.S. attempts to sharply increase the amount of power it gets from sources such as wind and solar. In 2007, according to the Energy Information Administration, about 7% of the nation’s electricity came from renewable sources, including less than 1% from wind.

If the U.S. wants to get 20% of its electricity from renewable energy by 2024, the study says, it would be necessary to build a new electricity circulatory system, including 15,000 circuit miles of extremely high voltage lines. The system, which would be laid alongside the existing electric grid infrastructure, would start in the Great Plains and Midwest — where the bulk of the nation’s wind resources are located — and terminate in big cities along the East Coast.

The transmission system would cost up to $100 billion. Building the wind turbines needed to generate the desired amount of power would cost about $720 billion, the study estimates — making the total investment about equal to the size of the current stimulus bill. The money would be spent over a 15-year period, and would be financed primarily by utilities and investors.

The purpose of the study was “to make clear that if you need large sums of energy that’s not carbon-based, these are the kinds of numbers involved” to achieve it, said Clair Moeller, head of transmission planning for the Midwest Independent System Operator.

The report was prepared by organizations responsible for electric-system reliability in roughly half the states, including the Midwest Independent System Operator, SERC Reliability Region, PJM Interconnection LLC, the Southwest Power Pool, the Mid-Continent Area Power Pool and the Tennessee Valley Authority.

The projected cost of the system is only one hurdle. Getting the high-voltage power lines build across the country would require the assent of local authorities and landowners, and might require federal intervention. “For that 15,000 miles of lines, I promise about 15,000 lawsuits,” said Mr. Moeller.

The report is generating controversy because there is no guarantee that expensive power lines, if built, would be used primarily to move renewable energy. They could just as easily carry energy from coal-fired power plants in the Midwest or Great Plains.

New York and New England grid operators provided information for the report but say there might be ways to build resources in their regions more economically than hauling power from the Great Plains. “This study doesn’t look enough at alternatives to huge transmission additions,” said Stephen Whitley, chief executive of the New York Independent System Operator.

Utilities are proposing to build some new transmission lines already, but nothing on the scale of what the report says would be needed.

At least the WSJ noticed the NYISO and ISO-NE’s objections — here it is again, it’s one of those letters I just can’t get enough of:

Feb 4 2009 NYISO & ISO-NE Letter to JCSP

The UMDTI is insidious, a cheerleading effort to push transmission through.  The way the thing is structured, is, as I said in my comments at the February 11, 2009, meeting, is ABSOLUTELY ASS-BACKWARDS.  It’s market driven backwards engineering a transmission solution to support nonexistent need.

Upper Midwest Transmission Development Initiative – HOME PAGE

UMTDI Stakeholder Letter 10-28-08

Stakeholder Responses – LINK – look who the stakeholders are – DUH!

Wind on the Wires Comments … sigh…

UMDTI Stakeholder Letter 12-31-08 (Ed Garvey – MISO)

Dec 30 Draft – Cost Allocation Work Group (Marya White – Commerce)

December 30 Draft – Transmission Planning Work Group (Randy Pilo – PSC-WI)

Wind on the Wires cites many studies:

MISO’s Regional Generation Outlet Study (RGOS)

Transmission planning initiatives by” CapX 2020, ATC, Mid-American and others”

Minnesota RES transmission study

MISO’s MTEP-08 and MTEP-09

Joint Coordinated System Planning Stuey

Eastern Wind Integration Transmission Study

None of these studies are linked — and they’re not on the UMTDI site — let’s see how long it takes to find them.

CapX 2020 – they’re HERE

See also the Certificate of Need Appendix A

ATC 10 Year Plan (2008)

MISO’s MTEP 08

Now for the more difficult ones… one moment please…