Legalectric

Photo from standing room only meeting in TaconiteÂ

Hot off the press on Excelsior’s Mesaba project! Public Comments from the Commerce meetings up north, and written Comments are now on line:

 Hearing Transcript: August 22 in Taconite

Hearing Transcript: August 23 in Hoyt Lakes

 DNR Staff Comment (REQUIRED READING)
 Written Comments received

Sen. Tom Bakk has an editorial in the Timberjay that is so full of unadulterated crap that I’m wondering if he’ll next propose a methane digester to deal with it all…

Where’s he getting his information from? He says the plant is in Bovey — I imagine the folks in Taconite will be suprised! He thinks coal is abundant, but doesn’t mention the little detail of the 300+% price increase last December, or the inability of some coal plants to get a reliable coal supply, putting their coal reserve and ability to generate in jeopardy. Mesaba plans to spew at least 54 lbs of mercury a year, and it takes what, a teeny fraction of an ounce to contaminate an entire lake? Has he checked how many Minnesota lakes have edible fish? Here are mercury impaired waters in the Superior Basin.  Here are mercury impaired waters in the Headwaters Basin. I’d probably be easier to show what ones AREN’T impaired. Mesaba’s 54 lbs. of air-emitted mercury will hit the already impaired Superior Basin waters, unless because of the short stacks they land in the already impaired waters of the Headwaters Basin. Discharge water will end up in Swan River and Mississippi River.

Here’s the MPCA’s Comments about this, from the Mesaba siting docket:

MPCA Comment #1

MPCA Comment #2

Don’t folks like Bakk and Beard worry about making statements like this that undermine their credibility — particularly in an election season?

Here is Bakk’s letter in its entirety. Compare it with last week’s Mike Beard editorial which is LINKED HERE:

Coal gasification provides a solution

Letter to the editor by Sen. Tom Bakk, DFL-Cook

A recent Timberjay editorial called into question the need for constructing a coal gasification power plant near Bovey that will produce much-needed jobs and energy on the Iron Range, depicting the Mesaba energy project as a largely partisan undertaking. As a longtime DFL legislator, I am supporting this plant because it is a model of cutting-edge clean coal technology, and also of bipartisanship that has united legislators and leaders from both sides of the aisle for the good of our environment and economy.

Coal is our nationâ??s most abundant fuel, with an estimated 250-year supply. The proposed Bovey plant gives us the opportunity to put Minnesota on the forefront of advanced clean-coal gasification. The new technology cuts emissions by two-thirds more than the next-best coal technology on the market. Its emissions are 1/1000 of some existing coal plants in Minnesota. It will be the first coal plant in the country to remove virtually all mercury.

The project was selected for funding in a competitive process by the U.S. Department of Energy, as the culmination of a two-decade program to develop and commercialize coal gasification. According to the DOE, the project is a stepping stone to the FutureGen plant, which will be the worldâ??s first coal power plant to have near-zero emissions. More than a dozen states are competing to be the site of the FutureGen facility. Minnesota policymakers, by passing legislation in 2003 to enable the project, secured the right to have this facility located on the Iron Range.

Additionally, Minnesota has the need for 3,000 to 6,000 megawatts of new power generation in the near future. If new coal facilities are not built, Xcel Energyâ??s demand for natural gas will increase from 2 percent of statewide demand in 2004 to 20 percent in 2011. This puts the stateâ??s energy needs in direct competition with our local natural-resource economy, which also is heavily dependent on natural gas for power. Operating costs for our local industries â?? industries that must compete to sell taconite pellets and paper in a new world economy â?? could increase drastically. If we do not find a way to use coal to meet this growing demand, Minnesota businesses and families will be left to shoulder the cost of this increasing reliance on natural gas for electricity generation.

It is equally important for us to create good-paying jobs for northeast Minnesota. In addition to the permanent jobs created, this project could bring more than an estimated $1.5 billion of investment to the region. The project is also likely to provide more than $1 million a year in real estate taxes to Itasca County, in addition to the new tax base that will be created as a result of the projectâ??s construction and operation.

The project, as proposed, will not condemn any homes or cabins. The proposed project site is a 1,200 acre, privately-owned industrial parcel. The project will pay to pump water out of taconite pits that will otherwise flood parks and towns in the region. The plant will not require a new transmission line to the Twin Cities, but instead will upgrade existing power lines and provide significant stability to the regional grid.

Instead of casting aspersions on this prestigious project, we should take a long, hard look at its real value: Minnesota families, Minnesota jobs, and Americaâ??s national security – priceless.Â

Project has many negatives

Editor:

The recent information and public comment meeting at Taconite was well attended and there were many interesting comments regarding the Mesaba project being proposed by Excelsior Energy – mainly lawyers from the Twin Cities. I came away with the following.
First, it is apparent that our elected government officials, the Iron Range Resources Board, and the Itasca County Development Corporation care little about the quality of the environment in northern Minnesota. They have all done â??special favorsâ? for this project with little public disclosure or debate. They have acted on incomplete and sometimes incorrect information. They granted Excelsior concessions or have given them funding that no other projects with such potentially harmful effects would have been given. All of the incumbent politicians currently running for Itasca County commissioner should be replaced because of their support for this misguided project â?? Dimich, Klegstad and Mandich. State level officials – Saxhaug and Solberg -are not much better and need to be held accountable for their votes to support this project. A vote against these people is a vote for more open and fair government – and for a high quality environment.

The Minnesota statute 216B.1694 – Innovative Energy Project is suspect in every way. The definition of innovative energy is a farce and refers only to the Mesaba project – what could be more ridiculous in this time of power sources such as sun, wind, and bioenergy. This statute almost makes one cry – it sells the environment out to this special interest group – dirty coal Excelsior Energy. Every part of the statute reeks with the odor of behind the scenes wheeling and dealing. But Subdivision 2, item 2 of the statute is most disconcerting as to its meaning and intentions. It states: â??(2) once permitted and constructed, [the project] is eligible to increase the capacity of the associated transmission facilities without additional state review upon filing notice with the commission.â?
Does this mean that they can build all of the other plants on this site – six pollution-spewing dirty coal plants side-by-side? Multiply the pollution, coal cars, and noise by a factor of six! This obviously needs clarification and demands change if this interpretation is correct.

The Excelsior spokesman repeatedly alluded to wanting to be â??good neighbors.â? Yet Excelsior Energy has attempted to block involvement by landowners at every step of the Public Utilities Commission process. They should have been worried about being good neighbors from the beginning – before they lobbied for and received power of eminent domain.

Finally, Peter McDermott speaking for the Itasca County Development Corporation talked about an economic analysis that showed the multi-millions of dollars that would result from the project. What data and assumptions were used in this analysis? Likely they were based on information provided by Excelsior, information always suspect, and, at best, incomplete. A real economic analysis must consider long- and short-term impacts – both positive and negative. There are plenty of negatives – environmental and social – related to this project.

John Zasada
Grand Rapids

At least they Joyce Foundation is being honest about it — finally… sigh… What’s honest? Well, they’re expressly stating the purpose of PROMOTION of coal gasification. Makes me want to puke. Don’t they do they’re homework? Don’t they know that the losses in efficiency and the astronomical increase in plant cost for capture alone make it unworkable?  And that’s before any sequestration pipelines for hundreds of miles and pumping stations and operations and maintenance of sequestration… Haven’t they read “Gas Migration?” (clue: it’s at www.abebooks.com)
FYI, the numbers are off. As if $500k isn’t enough, Clean Wisconsin got not $500k but $750k. $750k. Who knows, they all probably get shares in their CO2 market too! (will fill in a bunch of links manana) Oh, here’s the link for Chicago Climate Exchange.
Here’s the Joyce Foundation press release:

For immediate release
August 17, 2006

For information contact:

Mary Oâ??Connell
312 782 2464
773 425 0341 cell

Push to Get Climate-Friendly Technology for Midwest Power Plants

$3 Million in Joyce Grants to Boost Clean Coal

Chicago) â?¦ The Joyce Foundation is awarding grants totaling over $3 million to promote cleaner, climate-friendly ways of generating power from coal. The grants are part of an overall $7 million initiative, announced last year, to persuade developers of the next generation of Midwest power plants to shun older coal-burning technology in favor of new, cleaner technologies.

Major grants for promoting clean coal technologies among industry and regulators go to:

Clean Air Task Force, $787,500; Great Plains Institute, $437,500; and Natural Resources Defense Council, $437,500. The three groups will work with coal and utility executives, regulators, environmental and other groups to promote such technologies as coal gasification and capture and storage of carbon emissions, addressing technical, financial and regulatory barriers to progress.

In addition, the Foundation is awarding $500,000 to Clean Wisconsin to oppose conventional coal plants proposed for Wisconsin and promote alternatives, including coal gasification. An earlier grant of $300,000 to the Izaak Walton League, announced in April, supports groups that are fighting the expansion of the Big Stone plant in South Dakota. Several smaller grants will support other work with individual states in the Midwest and with targeted audiences, such as utility shareholders, union leaders, consumer groups and others, in making the case for clean coal. [A complete list of grants is below.]

â??We know the technology exists to use our regionâ??s abundant coal to generate the power we need, without risking further damage to our environment,â? said Joyce President Ellen S. Alberding. â??These grants will support those in industry, the public sector, and citizens groups who have had the vision to push for the cleanest possible coal technologies, and, we hope, help to prevent construction decisions that would trap us with another generation of harmful emissions.â?

An estimated thirty-six coal plants are under various stages of consideration for the Great Lakes region. Burning coal emits carbon, which contributes significantly to global warming; in addition, coal-burning plants have been major polluters of air and water in the Midwest and nationally. Coal gasification technology offers the possibility of reducing overall emissions as well as potentially capturing and storing carbon. The Joyce Foundation announced last year its intention to fund efforts to make sure that new Midwest power plants opt for the cleaner technology. The current grants, voted by the Foundationâ??s board on July 20, 2006, were chosen as a result of a request for proposals issued to selected groups earlier this year.

Grants to Promote Cleaner Coal for the Midwestâ??s Energy Future

Announced August 2006

Clean Air Task Force, Inc.
Boston, MA $787,500
To promote Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle in the upper Midwest. (21 mos.)

Clean Wisconsin, Inc.
Madison, WI $500,000
For a coordinated administrative intervention and public information campaign aimed at promoting coal gasification with sequestration as an alternative to conventional coal plants proposed for Wisconsin. The Wisconsin Citizens Utility Board would also be a partner in the intervention and campaign. (1 yr.)

Energy Foundation
San Francisco, CA $100,000
To support smaller-scale efforts to contest the licensing of conventional coal plants in the Midwest. (1 yr.)

Great Plains Institute for Sustainable Development
Minneapolis, MN $437,500
To support the efforts of its Coal Gasification Working Group. (21 mos.)

Michigan Environmental Council
Lansing, MI $87,500
To persuade regulators, utilities, and power plant developers in Michigan that any new coal plants should be able to use the latest technologies for capturing and storing carbon emissions. (21 mos.)

National Wildlife Federation
Reston, VA $122,700
To build support in Indiana and Michigan for coal gasification as an alternative to conventional coal-burning power plants. National Wildlife Federation affiliates Indiana Wildlife Federation and Michigan United Conservation Clubs would be partners in this effort. (21 mos.)

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
New York, NY $437,500
For its efforts to oppose the construction of new conventional coal plants and promote alternative plants using coal gasification with carbon sequestration. (21 mos.)

Ohio Environmental Council
Columbus, OH $113,750
To support its ongoing efforts to promote IGCC in Ohio and to oppose the permitting of a conventional coal plant proposed by AMP-Ohio, a municipal utility consortium. (21 mos.)

Resources for the Future, Inc.
Washington, DC $75,000
To conduct a quantitative assessment of the risks to shareholders and electric utility ratepayers of investing in various coal combustion technologies. (1 yr.)

Rockefeller Family Fund
New York, NY $50,000
To support ongoing coal advocacy activities of the Renewable Energy Alignment Mapping Project. (1 yr.)

University of Wisconsin-Madison Center on Wisconsin Strategy
Madison, WI $175,000
To build support among labor leaders in Wisconsin and other Midwest states for coal gasification as an alternative to conventional coal power plants. (21 mos.)

Announced May 2006
Izaak Walton League of America, Inc.
St. Paul, MN $300,000
To support intervention in the licensing hearings for the Big Stone II power plant in South Dakota and Minnesota. (1 yr.)

Coal Fact Sheet

All data are for the Midwest region (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio)

Significance of coal in the Midwest:
â?¢ 70 percent of the regionâ??s electricity is produced from coal
â?¢ The region consumes 25 percent of the nationâ??s coal (with 17 percent of the population)

Significance of coal boom:
36 new coal plants have been proposed throughout the region. These plants would increase the megawatts of coal produced by 25 percent

Source: U.S. Department of Energy, “Tracking New Coal-Fired Power Plants”

The coal plants in the Midwest produce:
â?¢ 20 percent of our nationâ??s utility-caused carbon dioxide emissions
â?¢ 20 percent of our nationâ??s utility-caused sulfur dioxide emissions
â?¢ 24 percent of our nationâ??s utility-caused nitrogen oxide emissions
â?¢ 26 percent of our nationâ??s utility-caused mercury emissions
Source: U.S. EPA Data

What is conventional coal?
Conventional coal technologies include pulverized coal and fluidized bed plants. These plants have higher levels of sulfur dioxide and mercury emissions than IGCC and cannot cost-effectively control carbon dioxide emissions.

What is IGCC?
A June 2006 EPA report defined IGCC (Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle) as:
â??a power generation process that uses a gasifier to transform coal (and other fuels) to a synthetic gas (syngas), consisting mainly of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. The high temperature and pressure process within an IGCC creates a controlled chemical reaction to produce the syngas, which is used to fuel a combined cycle power block to generate electricity. Combined-cycle power applications are one of the most efficient means of generating electricity because the exhaust gases from the syngas-fired turbine are used to create steam, using a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG), which is then used by a steam turbine to produce additional electricity.
For traditional pollutants such as nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM) and mercury (Hg), IGCC is inherently lower polluting than the current generation of traditional coal-fired power plants. IGCC also has multi-media benefits, as it uses less water than PC facilities. IGCC also produces a solid waste stream that can be a useful byproduct for producing roofing tiles and as filler for new roadbed construction. IGCC also has the potential to reduce solid waste by using as fuel a combination of coal and renewable biomass products.”

Half of the currently proposed coal plants in the Midwest would use IGCC.

What is carbon sequestration?
Carbon dioxide is captured from power plant flue gases and injected into appropriate geological formations for long-term storage. We have extensive experience using carbon dioxide for enhanced oil recovery, where it is injected into oil fields that are partially depleted. The carbon dioxide forces more oil out of the ground and is then stored in the rock formation.
Environmental savings of IGCC compared to state-of-the-art conventional coal plants

â?¢ 80 percent less sulfur dioxide emissions
â?¢ 35 percent less nitrogen oxide emissions
â?¢ 40 percent less water used
â?¢ 30 percent less solid waste
â?¢ 90 percent less mercury

Sources: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Environmental Footprints and Costs of Coal-Based Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle and Pulverized Coal Technologies”.
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/articles/control.html

Public Subsidies for IGCC
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 includes an investment tax credit of 20 percent on the gasification portion of a project, limited to $800 million total (support for about six plants). It also includes loan guarantees and several authorizations for specific IGCC demonstration projects.

Where can you find CapX2020, S.F. 1368, C-BED and TRANSLink together? It’s all connected, we know that, but it’s made simple for us right there on the Capx2020 site. There’s some interesting stuff if you go to left side of home page, to the Midwest Municipal Transmission Group site, and from there pick through the chaff and find the goodies, like Bylaws, and big ol’ spreadsheets full of calculations (how long until this disappears?). C-BED, here’s the SoS registration. And here’s the “C-BED study.”

Yes, it’s all connected. And here on the site, they don’t even give a complete list of all the projects. Can’t have all 200,000 affected landowners knowing what’s coming… sort of like the nuclear power proposal in South Dakota… Compare THIS LIST with this: capx-2020-proposed-lines.pdf Oh, but that’s just Phase I. Here it is, here’s Phase II: 2005-mto-transmission-plan-phase-ii.pdf

200,000 affected landowners. Say no more…