Art Hughes, are you out there???
February 24th, 2007
Hey Art, check in PLEASE!!!
Delaware nixes NRG’s IGCC
February 22nd, 2007
EEEEEE-HA!!!! It’s not over, but I’d guess the fat lady is about to sing!
Dig this! Yesterday, Delmarva, the utility, released its report, a thorough well done analysis, similar to that of MN Dept. of Commerce. Today, the state’s independent consultant released another analysis, along the same lines. These reports compare and evaluate the three bids, wind, natural gas, and NRG’s IGCC:
I’ll pull out some choice quotes — but there’s a lot going on so don’t hold your breath…
Where’s our Excelsior Mesaba Project ALJ recommendation?
February 22nd, 2007
I guess the rules only apply to some, the schedule only applies to some… The Excelsior Mesaba Project PPA ALJ Recommendation to the PUC was due yesterday. Word comes from a lobbyist, and separately from a non-party, that the ALJs’ recommendation is delayed. I had inquired at OAH because I hadn’t received it. No response… I called back and asked about the comments of others I’d heard that the Recommendation was coming out late and got confirmation. WHY AREN’T THE PARTIES NOTIFIED? Finally, at 9:45 a.m., the day after the Recommendation was due:
Dear Parties:
The Administrative Law Judges hope to issue the report in this matter late next week. Thank you for your patience.
Sincerely,
Maria Lindstrom
Staff Attorney
Office of Administrative Hearings
612-349-2527
Patience? Uh-huh… As a party whose name I can’t recall often says, “I feel like I’m at the Mad Hatter’s tea party.” I guess I’ll just sit here and collect and disseminate information from elsewhere in the country about IGCC as it goes down in flames. Today it’s Delaware!
Coal slowdown in North Carolina
February 21st, 2007
Hot off the press from Scott Golwitzer, Appalachian Voices, who was at the capitol with a crew yesterday:
Raleigh News & Observer
February 21, 2007John Murawski, Staff Writer
(Raleigh) News & ObserverPhoto caption: Lawmakers including Weiss, Kinnaird and Luebke want more time to consider legislation that supports renewable energy.
Duke Energy’s contentious bid to build two coal-fired power plants west of Charlotte hit another snag Tuesday.
Several state lawmakers, seeking time to consider options to a major power plant, said they will ask the state Utilities Commission to delay for three months a decision on Duke’s plans. The agency had been expected to rule this month.
The unusual public move by lawmakers to influence a case pending before the utilities commission, an independent regulatory body, is the most recent development that has vexed Duke Energy’s bid to add 1,600 megawatts of coal-fired power generation to meet energy demand in the Carolinas.
In November, the company acknowledged that its cost estimate for the plants had soared 50 percent, from $2 billion to $3 billion. And in December, an energy consultant submitted a report concluding that the state could get 10 percent of its electricity from renewable sources and efficiency programs with a minimal effect on customer bills.
Durham Democrat Paul Luebke, Wake County Democrat Jennifer Weiss and others said Tuesday that Duke’s coal plant proposal should be put on hold while the General Assembly considers legislation that would require the state’s public utilities to derive at least 10 percent of their electricity from renewable sources such as wind, solar or animal waste. Bills were recently introduced in the state House and Senate. If the state adopts such an energy policy, building a major power plant might be unnecessary, the lawmakers said.
The legislators have about 10 signatures in support of a delay, and they are soliciting more support from colleagues, with plans to submit their request to the utilities commission Thursday, Luebke said. Other lawmakers who participated in Tuesday’s announcement were Rep. Susan Fisher, a Buncombe County Democrat, and Sen. Eleanor Kinnaird, a Democrat representing Orange and Person counties.
“There is no reason to go ahead with these plants,” Kinnaird said.
Scott Gardner, Duke Energy’s manager for regulatory and government affairs, said the company is opposed to a delay. The company is urging quick approval of the coal-fired units so that it can lock in on negotiated prices for equipment and labor before costs rise again.
Gardner said Duke has already made its case in public filings and public hearings and now needs to proceed and build the units.
The company has maintained that renewable sources and efficiency programs are insufficient to offset the need for the coal plants.
“Our demand … is reaching a point of concern for us,” he said. “Locking in on pricing contracts is critical, and the more you put that off, the more volatile pricing becomes down the road.”
If built, Duke Energy’s proposed Cliffside units would be the state’s first major power plant project in a quarter century.
The timing of the Cliffside application is awkward for Duke, as global warming causes more alarm and momentum builds for energy alternatives.
Global opposition rises
Three weeks ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — established by the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organization — said that global warming is indisputably caused by mankind’s reliance on fossil fuels, including coal-fired power plants.
The proposed Cliffside project would release 11.5 million tons of heat-trapping carbon dioxide a year, equal to nearly 1 million automobiles.
The Cliffside proposal is also opposed by the state attorney general, who has said that Duke should be allowed to build only one of the coal-fired units, for a total capacity of 800 megawatts.
The lawmakers also said that Duke might be low-balling its cost estimates.
They want Duke to open its books to disclose how it calculated costs, what options were considered and how renewable energy sources and conservation programs could help.
Duke last month acknowledged that financing costs would add at least several hundred thousand dollars to the price tag, but critics of the proposed power plants contend that the project would likely cost upward of $4 billion.
The cost of the new coal plant would be passed on to Duke Energy customers.
“We don’t think the people of North Carolina have any idea what it would cost them if this plant were approved,” Luebke said. “This is particularly important because this state has never given alternatives to power plants a chance.”
Staff writer John Murawski can be reached at (919) 829-8932 or murawski@newsobserver.com.
———————————–
Charlotte Observer
February 21, 2007PLANNED REQUEST TO STATE UTILITIES COMMISSION
JOHN MURAWSKI
(Raleigh) News & ObserverDuke Energy’s contentious bid to build two coal-fired power plants west of Charlotte hit another snag Tuesday.
Several N.C. lawmakers, seeking time to consider options to a major power plant, said they will ask the N.C. Utilities Commission to delay for three months a decision on Duke’s plans. The agency had been expected to rule this month.
The unusual public move by lawmakers to influence a case pending before the utilities commission, an independent regulatory body, is the most recent in a series of developments that has vexed Duke Energy’s bid to add 1,600 megawatts of coal-fired generation to meet rising Carolinas energy demand.
In November, Duke acknowledged its cost estimate for the plants had soared 50 percent from $2 billion to $3 billion. And in December, an energy consultant submitted a report concluding that the state could get 10 percent of its electricity from renewable sources and efficiency programs with minimal impact on customer bills.
Durham Democrat Paul Luebke, Wake County Democrat Jennifer Weiss and others said Tuesday that Duke’s coal plant proposal should be put on hold while the General Assembly considers legislation that would require the state’s public utilities to derive at least 10 percent of their electricity from renewable sources. Bills were recently introduced in the state House and Senate.
If the state adopts such an energy policy, building a major power plant may be unnecessary, the lawmakers said. The legislators have about 10 signatures in support of a delay and they are soliciting more support from colleagues, with plans to submit their request to the Utilities Commission on Thursday, Luebke said.
Scott Gardner, Duke’s manager for regulatory and government affairs, said the company opposes a delay. The company is urging quick approval for the coal-fired units so it can lock in on negotiated prices for equipment and labor before costs rise again.
Gardner said Duke has already made its case in public filings and public hearings and now needs to proceed and build the units. The company has maintained that renewable sources are insufficient to offset the need for the coal plants.
If built, Duke Energy’s proposed Cliffside units would be the state’s first major power plant project in a quarter century.
The timing of the Cliffside application is awkward for Duke, coming at a time of growing alarm over global warming while momentum builds for energy alternatives. Three weeks ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change announced that global warming is indisputably caused by mankind’s reliance on fossil fuels, including coal-fired power plants. The proposed Cliffside project would release 11.5 million tons of heat-trapping carbon dioxide a year, equivalent to nearly 1 million cars.
And in Florida too!!!
February 21st, 2007
It’s everywhere, it’s everywhere!!! And North Carolina next…
Article published Feb 21, 2007
State objects to plant proposal
Taylor Energy Center told to fix problemsBy Bruce Ritchie
DEMOCRAT STAFF WRITER
State planners are objecting to a proposal that would allow a coal-fired power plant in Taylor County.
Tallahassee is a partner in the proposed project, called the Taylor Energy Center. The proposal faces opposition from environmentalists, who say it will increase pollution. The Florida Department of Community Affairs on Tuesday noted that 25 percent of the 2,996-acre site is wetlands and that it sits along the Fenholloway River.
“Given the character of the site and the current lack of provisions for natural resources in the proposed land-use category, the (proposal) has not demonstrated that natural resources including wetlands and floodplains will be protected,” the department said. The report contained objections and recommendations.
A spokesman for the power-plant partnership said objections by the state are not unusual and can be addressed.
Jeanne Zokovitch, a senior attorney with the WildLaw law firm representing 25 Taylor County residents, business owners and property owners, said the county shouldn’t adopt the proposals until significant changes are made.
“We were happy to see the citizen input had an impact,” she said.
Taylor County has 60 days to adopt the proposals under state law. If the state objections remain, the proposal could go to a state hearing officer and then to the governor and Cabinet for a decision.
DCA recommended that Taylor County revise the proposals to establish “meaningful and predictable standards” for protecting natural resources at power-plant sites.
The department also recommended that limits be placed on the size and number of electric-generating facilities that are allowed. The Taylor County Commission earlier had voted to allow only one plant at the site.
DCA also said information wasn’t provided to show there is water available for use by the power plant.
The proposed plant is expected to use 9 million gallons a day, but 7.5 million gallons will come from the nearby Buckeye Florida pulp mill’s wastewater, said Mark McCain, a spokesman for the power-plant partnership. He said there will be no wastewater discharge from the power plant.
“We have every intention of working with the county and the department to address those objections,” McCain said.
Taylor County Planning and Zoning Director Danny Griner said no hearing had been set to adopt the proposals. He said he’ll await a response from the power-plant partnership.