Just heard from Lisa Goza, of Stop TANC, that Modesto and Turlock dropped out, following SMUD’s withdrawal last week.  That’s supposedly 70% of the $$$$ for the project — gone!   Redding is hanging in there, but the STOP TANC crew is on them and… well… maybe tomorrow morning at the TANC board meeting, they’ll give it up, throw in the towel, and tank TANC.  It’s so close…

This group is amazing, so many people spread out over such a great distance, and they’re so wildly diverse, united against this obscene project built on lies — they’ve exposed the TANC project for what it is,  and it is falling… this is a case study in how to organize for impact.

Soon… it’s time for the silver stake!

Yolo supervisors reject transmission power lines

By LIZETH CAZARES/Lcazares@dailydemocrat.com
Created: 07/14/2009 03:49:59 PM PDT

The Yolo County Board of Supervisors attempted to short out a proposed high-voltage power line by sending a letter recommending the end of the long-debated project.

TANC, or the Transmission Agency of Northern California, is proposing to erect high-voltage power lines across Yolo County in an attempt set in place future renewable energy projects scattered throughout the state.

On June 30, TANC representatives spoke with Yolo County about the project, but after a lengthy discussion the board was not convinced the project was a good idea. While supervisors emphasized their commitment to renewable energy, they questioned the feasibility of the project and expressed their displeasure with TANC’s inability to work with local governing agencies.

Now, after the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, Turlock Irrigation District and the Modesto Irrigation District all withdrew from the project, the board decided to officially request that TANC end its project.

On Tuesday the board recommended to send a letter requesting that officials put an end to the project and adopt protocol for working with local government in the future.

Two more players drop out of TANC proposal

* By Scott Mobley

Two more TANC power line backers have defected, perhaps dooming a power line that has galvanized grass roots opposition from Cassel to Davis and beyond.

The Transmission Agency of Northern California board will hold a special telephone meeting this morning to consider whether to go ahead with a proposal to build the $1.5 billion, 600-mile-long power line.

Members of the public may participate in the meeting by telephone from the Redding Electric Utility office at City Hall and from 16 other TANC member offices around Northern California.

Turlock Irrigation District and Modesto Irrigation District on Tuesday followed the Sacramento Municipal Utility District in pulling out of planning for the high-voltage power line, slated to stretch from Lassen County to Silicon Valley.

Read the rest of this entry »

That’s Idiocy Returning on Parade…

LINK TO DELAWARE PSC’S DELMARVA POWER IRP DOCKET SITE

Tomorrow night in Dover, the Public Service Commission is opening the doors and it’s your turn to let them know what you think about Delmarva Power’s energy policy, how they’re getting their electricity, what sort of generation it’s coming from, what they’re doing (not) about conservation and efficiency, and what sort of generation you want them to use, i.e., get wind on line NOW!  And tell them we don’t need no stinkin’ transmission!

This is your opportunity.  They won’t let parties testify, so it’s your turn to step up to the plate.

Now for some background.  All the PSC blurbs call this the 3rd Delmarva Power IRP, but it’s not, it’s their third attempt to get it right, and the last one was so bad that they spent years trying and last November submitted a redo as asked by PSC, then a month later, they send a lame cover letter saying that they want to count that November redo attempt as the one due December 1, 2008.

So the PSC grabs that November 2008 attempt and accepts it.  EH???

Right… whatever.

Lame Cover Letter – December 1, 2008

IRP Main Document

Appendix A – Load Forecast

Appendix B – Demand Resources

Appendix C – Resource Model Update

Appendix D – Cost Recovery

You might remember Delmarva Power’s Todd Goodman’s outrageous behavior at the last IRP meeting in December, 2008.  AWARD FOR TODD GOODMAN, DELMARVA POWER.

Well, the Delmarva Power IRP saga continues, and the Workshop, Public Comment session…. whatever it is, it’s tomorrow night.

Tell the PSC that it’s time Delmarva Power get serious about conservation, that we want coal plants shut down, that it’s time to get wind on line, and that we do NOT want the Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway transmission line (you know, that line that runs from coal plants SW of Delaware, up through Indian River and to Salem.  PJM admits that the Indian River to Salem part of it is not needed, and it’s time to get the WHOLE truth out, that the entire line is not needed.  See Mid-Atlantic MAPP line cut short).

COME TO THE PSC’S DELMARVA POWER IRP WORKSHOP… PUBLIC COMMENT SESSION… JUST COME AND TELL THEM WHAT YOU THINK?

Delmarva Power’s IRP is based on an annual increase in demand of 1.9%.  Uh-huh… right…

Look what has been happening to electrical use:

Hmmmmmmmmmm, do you see what I seeeeeeeeeeeeee…

Regulated T&D Sales have gone down.

Default T&D Sales have taken a significant dive.

Despite that, what do they project in the IRP?  From their IRP Appendix A:

Energy use, measured in MWh, has been dropping significantly for years… but we knew that…

Now what about peak?  The Delmarva peak isn’t in their 10-Ks, but here’s PJM:

2008 Peak               136,310MW

Projected Peak    134,430MW

DOWN      1,880MW

DOWN           1.4%

And with 165,200MW of generation and a reserve margin of 28.6% (15% necessary) which even PJM describes as “well in excess,” suffice it to say PJM doesn’t need new power anytime soon.

Read it all here:

PJM 2009 Summer Preseasonal Assessment

And here’s some history – PJM’s revenue decreased 8% in 2008 (p. 9 of 44):

2008 PJM Financial Report

And remember, PEPCO, Delmarva Power’s parent, says that it may not sell shares to finance the MAPP line — so how would they finance it… or would they just admit that it’s not needed and not build it?

Pepco CFO May Postpone Investment to Avoid Share Sale

By Katarzyna Klimasinska

June 26 (Bloomberg) — Pepco Holdings Inc.’s new chief financial officer, Anthony Kamerick, is considering postponing some investments beyond 2010 to prevent selling shares below book value.

Pepco, the owner of Washington’s electric utility, currently plans about $1 billion in total capital projects for 2010, mainly on the Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway transmission line and smart grid, Kamerick said. The completion of the transmission line, also known as MAPP, has already been delayed by a year.

“We have to balance, obviously, the need to make sure our system is safe and reliable for the customers,” Kamerick said in a telephone interview yesterday from Washington, where the company is based. “It’s a delicate balance.”

MAPP is scheduled to start service in June 2014 and will run from northern Virginia, across southern Maryland and Chesapeake Bay, to Indian River, Delaware.

Smart grids will be able to detect power failures and automatically isolate them, increasing the reliability of the power system, according to Pepco.

Pepco sold shares at $16.50 each in November and has had a 25 percent decline so far this year. The current price represents 72 percent of book value, or assets minus liabilities, per share, according to a Bloomberg calculation from company data.

Pepco fell 3 cents to $13.39 in composite trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

Kamerick replaced Paul Barry, who resigned, on June 12. He has worked for Pepco and its predecessor, Potomac Electric Power Co., since 1970, most recently as chief regulatory officer.

Katie Troe, Safe Wind in Freeborn County

Tomorrow at 4:30 p.m. is the deadline for Comments on the Bent Tree Wind Farm Certificate of Need and Siting docket.  This is the 200-400MW wind project that Wisconsin Power & Light wants to build in MINNESOTA for credit towards the Wisconsin Renewable Electricity Standard.

QUICK, send your comments to:

Steve.Mihalchick [at] state.mn.us

For the PUC’s sites, go to www.puc.state.mn.us

Then click on the blue “eDocket” button…

… and search for dockets

08-573 for Siting Docket

07-1425 for Certificate of Need

And there’s also Commerce’s Siting page:

Dept. of Commerce Bent Tree Project Page

Remember, this is the one that, together with one in Clay County, triggered this White Paper:

MN Dept of Health – Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines

Here’s another story in the Albert Lea Tribune with a great “I think they need professional help” quote from Katie Troe:

Safe Wind lobbies state over turbines

By Jason Schoonover | Albert Lea Tribune

Published Monday, July 13, 2009

After a public hearing June 29, Safe Wind of Freeborn County is continuing to work to influence the placement of the turbines for the Bent Tree Wind Farm in Freeborn County.

Wisconsin regulators last week gave their permission for Wisconsin Power & Light to build the wind farm, though now it needs Minnesota approval.

Safe Wind is working to get its message out before the state Public Utilities Commission decides later this summer whether to approve the site permit and certificate of need for the project, which if passed would give the green light to construction.

One of the biggest concerns of Safe Wind is the health effects of the noise produced by the wind turbines. Katie Troe of Safe Wind said the turbines produce noises that can both be heard, and low-frequency sounds that some studies say are amplified and trapped in homes. Troe said some of the sound is audible and some is not.

Read the rest of this entry »

Last Thursday, July 9, there was a Wind Energy Forum in Wanamingo, the same Community Center where, about three weeks prior, there was a CapX 2020 scoping meeting.  This was sponsored by Southern Minnesota Initiative Foundation (Rich Huelskamp is part of that now?).

Noteworthy comments:

Dean Runde, Pioneer Prairie, when asked about turbine noise, said: “I’m surrounded by turbines, and I don’t hear a thing.  They’re half a mile away and I don’t hear a thing.”

Half a mile?  But of course you can’t hear them!  Try 800 feet, 500 feet!!!

The author of the Dept. of Health White Paper was on a panel also.  Here’s that report:

MN Dept of Health – Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines

The woman representing National Wind looked very unhappy.  Maybe it was the talk of setbacks, and I’m sure it was the talk of how developers are involving all the neighbors.  After all, Goodhue County has been a problem.  First, there was the ill-conceived “Kenyon Wind,” and then there was Goodhue Wind.  But what I found most enlightening, which I’m sure the National Wind folks wouldn’t like, was a Windustry handout about landowner leases which has a number of things for landowners to watch out for.  Here’s one that stands out:

7. Landowner should be careful about agreeing to the following types of provisions:

(a) Confidentiality provisions which prohibit Landowner from disclosing information pertaining to the
terms and conditions of the lease/easement.

Here’s the Windustry handout:

Windustry – Wind Energy Lease and Easement Agreements

Of concern — I’ve been hearing reports of non-disclosure provisions in Nicollet County, Bent Tree and Goodhue projects, but copies of the actual contracts have not been produced, so we’ll see…

And for some guidance, here’s a draft county ordinance regarding wind turbines that has a more reasonable setback:

Murray County Wind Energy Ordinance

Murray County did well in getting turbines set back far enough from roads, but I’d like to see more distance in basic setbacks.  Where they set setbacks at 3 or 5 rotor diameters, I’d like to see it at 3 or 5 total tower height (including up to tip of rotor when extended straight up).

Here’s the report from the Beagle:

Residents flood wind energy forum

WANAMINGO — Wind energy may be the wave of the future, but many Goodhue County residents still wonder what it means for them.

By: Jen Cullen, The Republican Eagle
RELATED CONTENT

WANAMINGO — Wind energy may be the wave of the future, but many Goodhue County residents still wonder what it means for them.

More than 150 people attended a wind energy forum Thursday in Wanamingo sponsored by the Southern Minnesota Initiative Foundation and the Southwest Initiative Foundation.

The agencies have collaborated to bring several wind energy forums to southern Minnesota communities.

“We need to get our brains around this, we need to get our minds around this,” said Tim Penny, president of the Southern Minnesota Initiative Foundation.

The forum focused mainly on community-based wind farm projects — those where local landowners are stakeholders.

A handful of wind energy companies — two of which were represented at Thursday’s forum — are interested in bringing such projects to areas like Kenyon, Cherry Grove, Goodhue and Belle Creek townships.

Representatives from competitors Geronimo Wind and Goodhue Wind, LLC., have been talking with residents for more than a year about putting wind turbines on land in the Goodhue area.

“Large firms want to build larger facilities,” Penny said. “We still think there’s an opportunity for some community-based projects that are smaller. But it’s not an easy path, it’s not a quick path.”

But it may be a more profitable path, said Eric Lantz, a member of National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s markets and policy analysis group.

Lantz evaluates the economic development impacts of wind power.

“It does look like community wind projects have a greater economic impact than absentee-owned projects,” Lantz said. “Perhaps that impact is not as great as stated by some, but there’s certainly a real advantage there.”

Lantz said research indicates community-based projects offer more jobs and funnel money back into the local economy.

Audience members peppered panelists with questions about everything from power purchase agreements to legal issues.

One even wondered just how “green” wind energy really is.

“The fuel source that powers the electricity that comes out of the turbines is air,” said Charlie Daum with Geronimo Wind. “To me that sounds like green energy, that feels like green energy.”

I think the crowd was more like 300, full of green T-shirts and they had a successful march on the Cascade Theater.  Incredible organizing by all of the many Stop TANC groups involved.

It’s tired out… gotta be on a plane first thing, at “too early o’clock”…

200 attend anti-TANC rally

• By Record Searchlight staff
• Posted July 8, 2009 at 3:16 p.m.

Nearly 200 green-shirted “Stop TANC” activists this afternoon have filled a room at the Holiday Inn in Redding to oppose Transmission Agency of Northern California plans for a 600-mile long high-voltage power line through the north state.

Lisa Goza, a Round Mountain power line opponent who helped organize today’s rally, urged the crowd to attend the July 21 Redding City Council meeting to persuade city officials to follow the Sacramento Municipal Utility District and pull out of the TANC project.

Carol Overland, a Minnesota attorney who has litigated against proposed power plants and transmission lines, told power line opponents to keep fighting even though SMUD, one of the largest backers of the TANC power line, pulled the plug on its planning for the project.

“It’s not over,” Overland said. “You’ve got some breathing room now. When they are down, kick them, and kick them again. Don’t let up. Being nice doesn’t help. You’ve got to crank down and really kick these guys.”

Opponents of a proposed high-voltage transmission line attend a rally Wednesday afternoon at the Holiday Inn in Redding.

Les Baugh, Shasta County supervisor representing the south county, said the TANC power line proposal has been misconceived and poorly planned from the start.

“They didn’t have to do it this way,” Baugh said. “They were not trying to co-locate these lines. That would have been a simple answer.”

Power line opponents from Yolo, Glenn and Tehama counties joined property owners from Round Mountain, Oak Run, Happy Valley, Cottonwood and others potential in the proposed transmission line’s path.

Goza, the Round Mountain activist, said opposition won’t stop until TANC pulls the proposed line off the federal register and halts the planning process.

“We want them to cancel this project, just like they canceled our meeting,” Goza said, referring to TANC’s decision to postpone a planned outreach meeting that had been scheduled for this evening at the Cascade Theatre.

Power line opponents still plan to march later this afternoon from Redding City Hall to the Cascade Theatre, where activists say they will demonstrate to TANC they will continue demanding answers to their questions. The march starts at 4:30 p.m.

Baugh said he was disappointed TANC put off the meeting, and power line officials will not meet there with north state residents to answer questions.

“Had they held that meeting and I had an opportunity to ask a question, I would have asked them, how do you mitigate a life?” Baugh said.

And about SMUD’s withdrawal from the TANC project (which should TANK the project):

Agency Withdraws From Project

By Craig Macho
Staff Reporter
cmacho@oakdaleleader.com
209-847-3021, ext. 8128

POSTED  July 8, 2009 2 a.m.

The Transmission Agency of Northern California (TANC) was dealt a blow recently when the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) informed the transmission agency that it was withdrawing from the project.

TANC is a California Joint Powers Agency (JPA) composed of 15 cities and utility districts from throughout the Central Valley, Bay Area, and other locations in Northern California. Agency members include the cities of Alameda, Biggs, Gridley, Healdsburg, Lodi, Lompoc, Palo Alto, Redding, Roseville, Ukiah, the Modesto Irrigation District (MID), Plumas-Sierra Rural Electric Cooperative, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, Silicon Valley Power, and the Turlock Irrigation District (TID).

SMUD would have covered approximately 35 percent of the cost of the 600-mile long transmission line project.

Those who have homes, farms, and other property in the path of the proposed project have criticized TANC and the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA). Critics have noted the agencies, which have the power to seize land via eminent domain, solicited little public input prior to releasing maps of the proposed path of the transmission lines.

A number of Oakdale area residents have spoken out in opposition to the project. A grassroots movement has also recently formed in both the Oakdale and Ripon areas to challenge the transmission line project.

Over 150 local residents turned out June 11 at the Almond Pavilion banquet facility in Oakdale for an update of the controversial $1.3 billion project and the transmission agency’s plan to construct and upgrade roughly 600 miles of high-voltage electric transmission lines and associated facilities in Northern California.

Another meeting will be held in Ripon sometime later this month.

According to a press release from TANC, outreach meetings by the agency have been put aside for now.

“In light of this recent development, all remaining public outreach meetings on the TTP that are scheduled during the month of July will be postponed. This time will enable TANC and its members, the Western Area Power Administration (Western) and other government agencies involved in the planning process to evaluate their options and to define the next steps in the process,” the release stated.

“TANC believes it is important to keep the “public scoping” period open during this time. Allowing the scoping process to proceed will help determine where to put the transmission lines needed to ensure reliable and affordable electric service for the residents and businesses throughout northern California and to expand access to clean energy sources such as solar, geothermal and wind energy,” the release concluded.

Sharon Ott, one of the organizers of the June 11 meeting in Oakdale, said she was pleased with the news SMUD had withdrawn. She continues to be concerned, however, of the project’s impact on the Oakdale area. She noted the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), a federal government transmission project, is still planning on using the Oakdale corridor to bring power from the Sierras to the Bay Area.

“We’ll continue with our opposition to WAPA,” she said.