Legalectric

It’s about as perfectly beeeeauuuuuteeeful a spring day as can be found anywhere.  From my desk looking out an easterly window towards the river, this Salem plume would be visible if a block’s worth of houses weren’t in the way — and unfortunately, not being able to see it does reduce its presence, much like the way my Prairie Island nuclear plant is nestled behind a bluff, but directly upwind and upriver…  Here in this nuclear zone, they don’t get calendars, they don’t get pottasium iodide, though they do have the nuke sirens.

The May 8, 2007 meeting of the Delaware Public Service Commission will be held at Wesley College, Dover, in Room 206 of the H.B. duPont College Center beginning at 10:00 a.m.

There have been some very interesting reports coming out of the PSC lately, things that look like thoughtful energy planning — and I hope it’s not a ruse. There was that staff recommendation of a wind/gas combo on the RFP side of things, and the recommendation focused on the broader policy issues that need to be addressed, those pesky little things like the need for a portfolio approach, the state’s dependence on transmission and need for its own generation… like wow!

Delaware PSC staff – wind/gas combo!

Then there’s a report about transmission and generator interconnection:

Generator Interconnection Study – Powerworld

And a short update/correction with additional runs on the RFP evaluation:

Independent Consultant Addendum

Overland’s take? The staff recommendation is a good option, in the public interest, and it gets wind going as dispatchable generation, removing one of the primary objections to wind, it’s variability. The IRP is the venue to make the larger policy changes, where, as staff noted in the RFP recommendation, a portfolio approach can be established. This is where the policy directives establishing DSM with TEETH (not present in DE yet), establishing the need for Delaware generation to prevent extortion by generation and transmission owners, demonstrating the need for specifically sited generation that would eliminate voltage problems in this electrical island. This RFP docket is one step and can propel the state into energy planning in the IRP — that’s what I’d like to see.

Imagine DE fulfilling its “baseload” needs with dispatchable wind — wind in combo with backup generation! Arizona is using concentrated solar and gas, Minnesota is using wind/gas and wind/hydro, Delaware can do wind/gas!

Imagine DE, through policy declarations, systematically choosing not to buy dirty coal! Indian River Units 1 and 2 are only 160 MW, not hard to replace. If Xcel can do it (well, we know, anything but IGCC!), imagine…

An MPR piece on the Bluewater Wind proposal in the RFP:

Offshore wind proposal gains fans in Delaware

Here’s the Delaware State Treasurer standing up for the public interest (stolen from Green Delaware): State Treasurer Jack Markell’s Letter to Delmarva Power.
Plus there’s a new report – a consultant’s view of reregulation! Where is it??? Can’t find it. I’ll post it as soon as I do…

Environmentalists expressed guarded optimism at the recommendation, which now goes to the commissioners for a vote.

“On the face of it, it seems like a sound recommendation,” said Alan Muller, executive director of Green Delaware, who cautioned that the wind project might not be economical if made smaller from the original proposal. “I think it’s a valuable step forward.”

Yes, in Delaware, IGCC coal gasification going down in flames! I just got the call moments ago, and am SO tickled. Delaware’s PSC staff gets it!
In Delaware’s RFP they have three “choices,” IGCC, gas and wind. So what does PSC staff do? They pick one from column B and one from column C, the wind/gas combo!

Delaware PSC staff – wind/gas combo!

Now what are the odds the PSC will do what staff recommends?

Here’s the full RFP docket

Here’s mncoalgasplant.com’s RFP Comments

… and mncoalgasplant.com’s RFP Exhibits

I am SOOOOOO tickled… hopeful even…

Here’s the entire News Tribune article:

PSC staff backs smaller wind farm, natural gas backup

By AARON NATHANS, The News Journal
Updated Wednesday, May 2, 2007 at 7:44 pm

Wind power generated off the Delaware coast took a step closer to a reality today.

A Public Service Commission staff report recommended building an offshore wind park, as well as a natural gas plant in Sussex County to back it up. The PSC released the report late this afternoon.

The wind park would be half the size of the development envisioned by Bluewater Wind, the New Jersey-based company behind the plans to build the wind farm. Bluewater had originally proposed a 600 mw facility; the report suggests the PSC instead approve a 200-300 mw facility.

Environmentalists expressed guarded optimism at the recommendation, which now goes to the commissioners for a vote.

“On the face of it, it seems like a sound recommendation,” said Alan Muller, executive director of Green Delaware, who cautioned that the wind project might not be economical if made smaller from the original proposal. “I think it’s a valuable step forward.”

Instead of building at the Hay Road facility as Conectiv proposed, the report recommended building its natural gas plant in Sussex County, at a site to be determined.

“Although Staff’s recommendation is not the least expensive solution, it is a complementary energy arrangement that will help to mitigate global warming and reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Taken together, these projects, when appropriately managed, should have a positive impact on price stability,” the report read.

“This is a great day for Delaware,” said Jim Lanard, spokesman for Bluewater Wind, who cautioned that the proposal needed the approval of the commission itself, as well as three other state agencies.

Bluewater still hopes to build the larger wind park, and would attempt to convince Delmarva to accept more electricity, Lanard said. If it fails, Bluewater could seek other customers to accept the electricity Delmarva does not want, he said.

There was not yet word from Conectiv about whether it would be willing to build the recommended facility.

The recommendation comes after seven months of deliberations, and a series of public meetings in which speakers overwhelmingly backed the wind farm proposal.

The commission is expected to vote on whether to accept one or more of the bids at its meeting on Tuesday in Dover. The five commissioners are free to accept the staff recommendations or ignore them.

Bids went out last year after the Legislature asked the commission, and three other state agencies, to seek a home-grown source of electricity, with the intent of stabilizing and bringing down the price of electricity. That’s after deregulation, and the removal of rate caps one year ago, led to a 59 percent average rate increase for Delmarva Power residential customers.

Contact Aaron Nathans at 324-2786 or anathans@delawareonline.com.

In today’s STrib, a letter from my clients, neighbors to the proposed Kenyon Wind project:

MANDATING RENEWABLES

Price of wind energy

Legislation to develop renewable energy needs introspection. History shows when there’s a rush to implement new policy, unintended consequences prevail.

Such is the case with wind energy. People assume wind energy is “free” — no pollution, no greenhouse gases, no downside — but there’s more to consider.

Wind turbines have typically been installed in remote areas with sparse population. The legislative mandate has developers feeling they’ve been given “carte blanche,” but wind generators must be sited responsibly.

Utility-grade wind turbines are taller than the Foshay Tower, more than 400 feet to blade peak, with spinning rotors weighing 30 tons. Kenyon Wind proposes to site turbines within just 800 feet of residences of people not invested in the project, which is too close given safety and noise concerns. Turbines are annoying, noisy neighbors, and they generate not just electricity but “flicker” by casting shadows during daylight hours.

Like any “good” idea, there are consequences. Wind turbines on sparsely populated southwest Minnesota prairie are one thing — siting them among close residences here in southeast Minnesota is another.

MIKE CHASE, KENYON, MINN.
PRESIDENT, CITIZENS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS AND SAFETY

Time to haul out the big honkin’ gavel again…

I am not making this up — from the “FOURTH PREHEARING ORDER” in the Mesaba Project siting docket:

Unless excused by an Administrative Law Judge, failure of a party to file testimony when due shall result in that party being denied further participation as a party in this matter.

FOURTH PREHEARING ORDER

Ironic given that just last week, there was the backpedalling Chisago ALJ Order that said:

The fact is that our system of due process delights in the contributions that genuinely motivated parties make toward building a record for later decision-making.

Uh-huh… right… except when, as Xcel’s Chris Clark said, “We didn’t have anything to say!” Thankfully, my clients aren’t the only ones who haven’t submitted testimony. We’re in good company – there’s Xcel, Minnesota Power, so far, Excelsior is the only party to submit testimony, and that makes sense because THEY have the burden of proof in this. Intervenors are under no obligation to submit testimony, and if they “didn’t have anything to say” or if they’re cash strapped and will build the record on cross-examination, that’s just ducky.

So, show me the authority for an order like this!!!

hy are we sitting back? The ALJs’ recommendation has come down in the PPA side of things, with the ALJs recommending that Excelsior’s Petition be denied. As we wait for the Public Utilities Commission to take it up, the siting side of this is sitting… languishing… a good thing:

Commerce Siting Docket Site

For PUC Siting docket site, go to www.puc.state.mn.us and then to “eDockets” and then to “Search Documents” and then search for docket “06” and “668.”

Intervenors in a docket may participate to the extent that the choose. They can wage and active and fierce intervention or they can collect the mail as biomass, their choice. They can passively proceed with thumbs up various orifices or flood the other side with frantic information requests. It’s OUR choice. It’s not for the ALJ to limit. So here we go again, off to the races.

And of course I’m remembering the Hearing Examiner gavelling and yelling at Alan when he had the nerve to ask for the authority for ordering that he and the other Intervenors could not speak at a public hearing! I’m remembering the ALJ’s Order that CRVC explain just exactly why their representing themselves was not unauthorized practice of law (Here’s another post on that). And I’m remembering David Ludwig of the PSC essentially saying the same thing to me when I was representing a client before the PSC! How dare they try to quash the public! I expect this from the project proponents, but from state agencies? The arm of the governor???

Unless excused by an Administrative Law Judge, failure of a party to file testimony when due shall result in that party being denied further participation as a party in this matter.

Plus they’ve not added Charlotte, Ed, Ron and Linda, and Ross to the service list… so they didn’t know about this outrageous Order.

OK, fine, whatever, well, at least Xcel and Minnesota Power know about this and I trust they’re shaking their heads in amazement too…