I got a call yesterday that reminded me that I’d forgotten to post this.  Hope to see some good coverage — this is an important step in an important decision because it commits us to how many more years of nuclear and nuclear waste?!!??!  Is this where we want to be?  Literally… this plant is in “my” town and my bluff faces the plant, immediately down river and down wind.

The ALJ’s Recommendation for the Prairie Island uprate and dry cask expansion is out — no surprises here:

Prairie Island – ALJ’s Recommendation

We’ll see what the PUC has to say.  The legislature has the option of nixing any PUC decision, but I’m not holding my breath.

Goodhue Wind files application

October 26th, 2009

Here we go… Goodhue Wind, LLC has filed an application.

To see the docket, go to www.puc.state.mn.us and search for docket “08-1233.”

It came in the mail today, and I looked at the service list, and I don’t think these guys are very interested in public relations or being good neighbors.


I’m the only non-industry wonk on the service list, no one, not one of the many people who have expressed interest in this project, not one of the many people in the area who have filed comments on various dockets, not one of the many people who attended the wind meeting in Wanamingo a few months ago, NONE were included on the service list.


Let’s see, they first filed this sucker a year ago… and now they’re getting around to filing an amended application.

I’ll post links here soon…

Goodhue Wind – Amended Application

Application Appendix A-1

Application – Appendix A-2

Application – Appendices B-F

Some of those are pretty big, and the “B-F” wouldn’t reduce, so it’s a link.  Oh well…

Today’s the day that the Legislative Energy Commission meets to hear about MOES Resource Assessment Study.  Focus is on the horse’s ASS of Assessment, it is deserving of one of these guys:


Here it is:

Minnesota Resource Assessment

The LEC meeting starts in 10 minutes — hammer down!

FRIDAY, October 23, 2009
12:30 PM
Room: 200 State Office Building

And when you get there, hammer on them, there’s no excuse for a report like this.  Look at their forecasts, they admit the system peak was 2006, folks, it’s been downhill from there, that’s more than a “blip” and when you add in the 1.5% conservation mandate, where are we?  They’ve not addressed this.

If you look at where Xcel thought we’d be, in their 2004 forecasts for Blue Lake, we’re below where they said we’d be in 2004.  Hmmmmmmmmm, take a look at Xcel’s forecast:


And Xcel’s peak demand reality:


And very graphically:


We’re down at least 2-2.5% in 2009 from SEC filings.  At this rate, how long before we’re at the 2004 forecasted 9,100MW?  MOES, how stupid do you think we are?  If I were on the LEC, I’d be outraged!  I’m not on the LEC so I’m just … just… lacking in words…  If I produced something like this, I’d be fired.


Blake Wheatley promotes his vaporware project (from Chisago County Press, fair use)

Here’s the latest from the Chisago County Press:

10/22/2009 8:38:00 AM

Hundreds attend LS Power information meeting sponsored by county and Lent Township


Monday night’s informational meeting on the LS Power electric station project began civilly-enough; but as the session stretched into its second hour, peoples’ patience thinned and audience members felt compelled to hoot at some speakers or applaud mightily for others.

Lent Township Hall, an airplane hangar-sized building, was filled to standing room only. Posters were carried by people declaring “stop the power plant” and “we need jobs now.”

The panel of state and local officials walked everybody through the various processes each panel member had regulatory authority over. The public microphone was then opened up for statements, speeches, questions and concerns in the second half of the meeting.

There is no design or site plan available yet for the electric station, which is proposed for an area near County Road 14 and 15, next to the Xcel electric substation.

The Public Utilities Commission has been told to expect a permit application from LS Power in late 2009 or early 2010, according to PUC representative Bob Cupit.

Those attending the meeting were also informed state authorities have “pre-empted” from local authority, the permitting for the LS Power electric station project.

Chisago County Attorney Janet Reiter explained state laws basically require state control over projects needing state permits. The county is a “subdivision” of the state and Reiter added, the county relinquishes siting and permitting tasks for a project like this.

Later in public comment, an anti-power plant organizer Shellene Johnson seemed to support local authorities taking back oversight. She asked Bob Cupit, the Public Utilities Commission official, to expound on ways statutes do indeed allow for a “local siting” procedure.

Cupit said the facility must be operated ONLY as a peaking plant and must use a single source of fuel, for it to qualify under local siting. He was under the preliminary impression the LS Power project did not qualify for this. LS Power proposes a combined fuel plant of natural gas and fuel oil.

Cupit also assured the audience the PUC analysis and review of this plan will be “top end.” Due to the public interest and implications of the project, “no short shrift” will be given to this state review by any PUC regulators, Cupit stressed. LS Power has to demonstrate need for the plant capacity (futures contracts sales, etc.) and show the PUC the project, “is in the interests of Minnesota energy consumers.”

The PUC permitting process can take anywhere from six months to one year, depending on what PUC Board members pursue as a review process. Cupit said law allows for a citizen task force. He anticipates citizens will be asked to contribute during development of the permit evaluations.

If citizens feel the system still failed to consider issues, the decision of the PUC can be appealed to the state Court of Appeals.
Read the rest of this entry »

From the Minnesota Office of Energy Security:


… the Minnesota Resource Assessment … sigh…

Get out your waders… from the solicited Comments at the end, from “stakeholders,” (did I miss some notice and comment period here???  Did any of YOU get notice???) the problems raised are nearly universally complaints.


OK, now open it up and look … and in it on page 6 is that MOE’S napkin calulation that they finagled into the CapX 2020 record after we got extracted some damning testimony about decreased demand, this is such utter bullshit, look at this and see for yourself:


And you may ask, what that in the X axis?  Good question, there’s no identification.  And the Y?  Same.


This is the report we’ve been waiting so long for?

This is the report that, at the Legislative Energy Commission I testified at, Chair Solon-Prettner was asking for, demanding, because it was way late?

This report was presented in all seriousness to the Legislative Energy Commission?  I would hope that I could hear them laughing all the way down here in Red Wing…

Here’s “Capital Costs” from page 19:


And further back, the Preliminary Capital Costs:


Oh, please… Commerce was part of the Mesaba Project, and Elion Amit did the economic analysis.  From that 2005 data, this is way way off, THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THIS WHATSOEVER.

IGCC in 2005 dollars was $3,595/kW and now it’s more.

IGCC w/ sequestration is, first, NOT POSSIBLE, and second, price would double just for capture, and the storage can’t be done.

Coal is more expensive that that and you know it.

Wake me up when you can deliver some meaningful numbers.

Look at “Generation by fuel source under selected scenarios” starting on p. 87.  In only one scenario does coal go down at all, and that’s for a “National RES” scenario, and it only goes down a teeny teeny bit.  Give me a break…nationalres


If you have questions or comments on this Minnesota Resource Assessment contact:

Marya White, Reliability Administrator

Minnesota Department of Commerce

85 7th Place East. Suite 500

St. Paul, MN 55101


marya.white [at] state.mn.us

If you want to tell Steve Rakow what you think of his “Forecast Comparison” and analysis:

Steve Rakow

Minnesota Department of Commerce

85 7th Place East. Suite 500

St. Paul, MN 55101

steve.rakow [at] state.mn.us

Once more with feeling…