Oops, there goes a Suzlon…

Anyway, today the STrib has an editorial today about increasing setbacks — it’s a mixed bag — scroll way down below to read it.  This concern of setbacks is ramping up and  goes back to concerns raised over the years regarding individual projects as they wind their way through the permitting process.  Now there is this PUC Docket that is coming to a head, based on a survey report commissioned by the Commission — they’re supposed to have a PUC meeting addressing this docket, maybe this month, but no word yet, don’t worry, I’ll post notice here (we know they’re not so hot on giving notice to non-wind industry interests in this docket):

MN Dept of Health – Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines

To look at that docket, CLICK HERE FOR PUC SEARCH, and search for docket 09-845.

This also comes at the time that Comments are due in the Goodhue Wind PPA docket.  To look at that, go to CLICK HERE FOR PUC SEARCH, and search for dockets 09-1349 and 09-1350.  For the Certificate of Need docket for Goodhue Wind, see Docket 09-1186.

Yesterday (the comment deadline WAS yesterday) I filed this for Goodhue Wind Truth:

Goodhue Wind Truth – Comment 2

Then it turns out the PUC had filed another extension for MOES (seems they can’t meet a deadline these days, the EIS for CapX was also just delayed today too) and the deadline is now 2/12 for Comments and 2/22 for Reply Comments.   GREAT!  Another whack at the apple…  Now’s your chance.  You can eFile them at the PUC site, or mail in, take a look at the Comment above to get an idea how to do it.

Back to wind generally — This opinion piece was in the Republican Beagle a few days ago:

Study of wind project may blow you away

Erin Logan


I found out by pure accident my home is in the Goodhue Wind Project area by looking at the map published Dec. 9 Zumbro Shopper. What a surprise. Why wasn’t I notified?

I received a packet in the mail sometime around Dec. 15 from a Twin Cities attorney; let’s just call it “notification.” I decided I better read the information to find out what it means to be in the Goodhue Wind Project.

The 212-page document is a dry read, but some interesting information caught my attention. It includes a site map identifying homes and proposed placement of the 400-foot tall wind turbines.

To my surprise my home does not exist on the proposed project map, but it does show a wind turbine 100 feet from my home and two more within 1,500 feet. I wonder how many other homes have been omitted from or wiped off the map?

Let me share a few things I have learned since I read through this packet.

The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission has jurisdiction over this project due its size. The public can submit comments regarding the permit application until Jan. 22. I will definitely take advantage of this opportunity, although I’m not sure how much good it will do.

I understand the PUC was made aware of homes not included in the project application, but were not concerned with the detail of the site plan.

Reading through information on the PUC Web site I learned a state statute allows our county commissioners to adopt more stringent zoning ordinances for Large Wind Energy Conversion Systems. This means our local elected officials have the authority to define what is best for Goodhue County residents regarding this project.

The purpose of the setback is to protect adjacent landowners if the turbine falls over, mitigate noise levels and shadow flicker that may be imposed on their homes. It will also provide protection if any ice builds up on the blades, breaks off and plummets 400 feet to the ground.

I have learned that current Goodhue County zoning setback requirements do not allow a wind turbine to be erected within 750 feet of a dwelling. This is reciprocal in that a dwelling cannot be constructed within 750 feet of a wind turbine.

Hmmm, I think I just lost the right to build an attached garage or an addition between my house and that wind turbine 750 feet away.

The property line setbacks are less stringent: 500 feet for a 400-foot tall wind turbine.

I encourage anyone who has an unoccupied residence or temporary dwelling in place to speak up. This project could restrict where you are allowed to build on your property.

Gaps in the system like this make it clear to me we are not prepared to endorse a project of this magnitude. This is new territory that warrants some education in lieu of assuming we can rely on outdated regulations to provide safety, health and well-being to Goodhue County residents.

As I read through this permit application I see inaccurate data, incomplete information and open-ended statements. There are far too many to include in detail, so I’ll share a few of the items that seem fairly important to me.

• Actual wind turbine size — The permit application states that this can be changed to meet the needs of the project. Will they be 300 feet, 400 feet or taller?

• Equipment specifications — The application identifies the sound level created by the smallest wind turbine they would choose to install. This data is used to determine the distance the wind turbine can be located from your residence while ensuring they don’t exceed the maximum amount of noise pollution you can be subjected to.

• Project decommissioning — As stated in the application, all above-ground equipment and foundations, to a depth of 4 feet, will be removed. This does not meet Goodhue County Ordinance, Article 18, Section 5, Subd. 10.

• Economic impact — This is such a multi-faceted topic, but it is good to note the claim that the local economy will benefit from the dollars the project will pay in state and local taxes and the long-term beneficial impacts to the counties’ tax base. Take a look at the corporate Web site — — which lists the financial incentives for wind projects. The way I read that information, this project will be exempt from both property and sales tax.

I would also like to know what kind of long-term impacts this will have on local and county roadway lifecycles.

I hope enough people encourage our commissioners to update zoning ordinances to adequately mitigate the impact of a Large Wind Energy Conversion System on Goodhue County residents.

For anyone who thinks this doesn’t affect them, keep in mind wind conditions are similar throughout Goodhue County and there is a lot of land out there. Implementing this project may open the door for wind turbines in your neighborhood.

I need more information before I can make an educated decision on whether this project will be a benefit or a detriment. Perhaps others in and around the Goodhue Wind Project area have received more information.

This is a community-based project, yet I have never had one of the local representatives stop by during one of the many trips they’ve made past my home. I believe that a good idea is worth talking about, so why all of the secrecy?

Here’s the response of Ann Occhiato, a  landowner who lives in the proposed Greenvale project in Dakota County to the STrib editorial, below:

I am writing in response to today’s editorial on increased wind turbine setbacks.  While the editorial highlights the critical need to increase setbacks to maintain wind’s momentum, it minimizes the reasons why setbacks are important in the first place.

There is, in fact, credible evidence that low frequency sound from wind turbines can have a negative impact on health.  The Minnesota Dept. of Health’s white paper on the Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines outlines this and recommends the cumulative affect of multiple turbines be taken into account when evaluating sound impacts, which is not currently done.  There is a huge amount of circumstantial evidence from homeowners living near turbines all over the world on the negative impacts to quality of life, health, safety, and property values.  While the wind industry and proponents of wind like to point to studies that minimize these issues, numerous other studies show these impacts to be real.

The fact is there are serious issues related to wind farming that need to be addressed including setbacks, environmental regulation, property rights, health, safety, quality of life, and economic justice, among others.  Industrial scale wind turbines clustered in “farms” can ruin neighborhoods and seriously alter the course of people’s lives.  Belittling their concerns will not help the wind industry in Minnesota and it certainly does not make us a national leader.

As wind continues to spread these problems will only become more pronounced.  Increased setbacks, pre-permitting site guidelines, community support and involvement, alternative modeling, and other solutions are necessary for the continued growth of the wind industry in Minnesota.  Developers, public officials, legislators, and environmental groups have a responsibility to address these issues.

Ann Occhiato

Here’s the STrib’s editorial:

Editorial: Reconsider setbacks for wind turbines

Expand wind energy while respecting rural livability.

To drive through the Minnesota countryside is to drive through contradiction. Those vast rolling fields — are they busy engines of production for the agriculture industry? Or are they places of natural beauty, serenity and tranquility?

It’s harder nowadays to have it both ways. The rapid advance of wind farming, for example, has transformed the rural landscape. Hardly anyone denies the value of the clean energy produced by the giant wind turbines going up on sparsely populated land all across the country. At last count there were nearly 1,500 such turbines operating in Minnesota, making it the nation’s fourth-largest wind power-producing state. Many more turbines are on the way, and that’s a good thing.

But if badly located, the machines can harm not only the beauty and serenity that so many rural people value, but invite thoughtless and pernicious opposition to wind power generation. That, in turn, could impede the changeover to greener energy that’s so badly needed. Minnesota must keep pace with its goal of producing 25 percent of its electricity from renewable sources (mostly wind) by 2025. The current share from wind is about 5 percent.

As the Star Tribune’s Tom Meersman reported last week, complaints about wind turbines are mounting, less on their merits than on their occasionally inappropriate locations. A family near Austin, for example, lives just across the road from a wind farm. One giant turbine, about 900 feet away, casts a flickering shadow over their 100-year-old farmhouse. There’s little they can do. State law allows commercial turbines as close as 500 feet from dwellings, although decibel restrictions typically stretch the actual distance to 700 to 1,000 feet. That’s still too close for a 400-foot turbine, especially if it’s not on your property.
Read the rest of this entry »

Here are the articles on the NJ BPU delay of decision on Susquehanna-Roseland transmission line, but before that, here’s the letter the BPU sent to PJM requesting more information based on yesterday’s decision to put on the brakes:

BPU Secretary letter to PJM

Color me jaded, but what is needed is what Stop the Lines requested in our STL – Reply Brief, based on the sensitivity analysis ordered for PATH:

•    PSE&G must waive any claim to FERC “backstop” authority in the pendancy of this sensitivity analysis and Board deliberation.

•    The sensitivity analysis must include, but is not limited to those scenarios Ordered in the PATH docket:

1.    Susquehanna-Roseland load flow analyses updated to reflect the following changes in generation: (i) all existing generation as of January 7, 2010, which is not scheduled to be retired before 2014; (ii) all proposed generation that cleared the May 2009 PRM Auction; and (iii) all proposed generation with a signed ISA as of January 7, 2009 (“Scenario 1 generation”);

2.    Susquehanna-Roseland load flow analyses updated for the changes in Scenario 1 generation, and updated to reflect PJM’s 2010 load forecast (“Scenario 2”);

3.    Susquehanna-Roseland load flow analyses updated for the changes in Scenario 1 generation, and updated to reflect the demand response and energy efficiency resources that cleared the May 2009 RPM Auction;

4.    Susquehanna-Roseland load flow analyses updated for the changes in Scenario 1 generation, and PJM’s 2010 load forecast (i.e., Scenario 2) and updated to reflect the demand response and energy efficiency resources that cleared the May 2009 RPM Auction;

5.    Susquehanna-Roseland load flow analyses updated for the changes in Scenario 1 generation, PJM’s 2010 load forecast, and to reflect the demand response and energy efficiency resources that cleared the May 2009 RPM Auction (i.e. Scenario 4), and updated to reflect the forecasted additional demand response and energy resource reasonably available for 2014, 2015 and 2016 (i.e. using MW from PATH of 367, 420, and469 respectively); and

6.    Susquehanna-Roseland load flow analyses updated for the changes in Scenario 1 generation, PJM’s 2010 load forecast,  the demand response and energy efficiency resources that cleared the May 2009 RPM Auction, the forecasted additional demand response and energy resource reasonably available for 2014, 2015 and 2016; and updated to reflect additional demand response and energy efficiency projected (i.e. using MW from path of 1,825, 2,140 and 2,403 respectively).

These results shall be distributed to the parties as soon as possible and shall be subject to limited discovery and cross examination, after which the Board shall consider them together with the balance of the record in this matter.

See why it’s frustrating — they just missed the boat completely with the vague request to PJM…

So, on with the press coverage about yesterday’s decision to delay:

New Jersey regulators delay decision on PSEG transmission line

By Mark Peters

NEWARK, N.J. (Dow Jones)–New Jersey regulators voted Friday to delay for up to 30 days their decision on a high-voltage power line proposed by a unit of Public Service Enterprise Group Inc. (PEG).

New Jersey’s largest utility has been planning the transmission project for two years, saying it will relieve stress on existing lines, improve reliability and provide access to lower-cost power. But the timetable for what’s known as the Susquehanna-Roseland project has come into question, as other projects in the 13-state PJM Interconnection power market, which includes New Jersey, have been put on hold in recent weeks.

The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities said that in light of the other delays, it will hold off on its decision and request a further review from PJM. The grid operator, in a short letter to regulators this week, said the New Jersey project is still needed and isn’t affected by the delays of other projects.

“We should seek and receive further detailed confirmation from PJM,” said Commissioner Joseph Fiordaliso, before the board voted unanimously for the delay.

The $750-million, 45-mile project planned by Public Service Electric & Gas, which is a unit of Public Service Enterprise Group, would run from northern New Jersey into Pennsylvania. PSE&G could earn up to a 12.9% return on its equity investment in the project, which is scheduled to be operational in the summer of 2012.

In a statement, a spokeswoman for PSE&G said the utility is disappointed with the delay and considering its options to ensure reliable service for its customers.

PSE&G is partnering on the transmission project with PPL Corp. (PPL), which would build the $510 million Pennsylvania portion of the line. PPL won the backing of state regulators there Thursday.

But slumping power demand driven by the recession and conservation and curtailment programs is causing utilities and regulators to reconsider the schedule for transmission projects. Although expected to rebound this year, power demand declined in 2008 and 2009, with last year’s drop being the largest in more than 70 years.

In recent weeks, Allegheny Energy Inc. (AYE) and American Electric Power Co. (AEP) said they plan to delay a $1.8 billion transmission line from West Virginia to Maryland because of a less-robust outlook for power demand. Pepco Holdings Inc. (POM) followed by asking Maryland regulators last week to suspend a review of a $1.2 billion transmission line through Maryland. The companies will await a study of regional transmission needs expected from PJM in late June.

Public Service Enterprise Group shares were at $32.32, down 50 cents, or 1.5%, in recent trading.

-By Mark Peters, Dow Jones Newswires; 212-416-2457


Decision delayed on power project

Saturday, January 16, 2010
Lawrence Ragonese

Opponents of a massive North Jersey power project hailed the state Board of Public Utilities’ decision yesterday to postpone a vote on the high-voltage matter for 30 days as the first step toward derailing it.

But BPU officials, at a special hearing in Newark, said they only delayed a vote to ensure they have all information needed to assess the merits of PSE&G’s proposed Susquehanna-Roseland line, especially after a similar power project stalled recently in the mid-Atlantic region.

“The significance of the case makes it absolutely essential that the commissioners be in a position to fully review the record and have the depth of understanding to weigh its benefits and liabilities,” said commission member Joseph Fiordaliso.

At issue is a 45-mile, $750 million high-voltage line that would cut through Morris, Essex, Sussex and Warren counties, which Public Service Electric & Gas contends is needed to maintain reliability of the regional electricity grid. A similar 101-mile connecting line in Pennsylvania got that state’s approval Thursday.

Project opponents say it would harm the environment, make people living near the line ill, and bring “dirty” coal-generated power through New Jersey solely to benefit out-of-state power needs and generate profits for the power company.

“This would be devastating to North Jersey and my town, which will be ripped to shreds by this project,” said Fredon Mayor Carl Lazzaro.

“They’ve never proven they need all of this electricity. It’s all about making money for their shareholders,” added East Hanover Mayor Joseph Pannullo.

The BPU was poised to decide the fate of the project yesterday but agreed to let the issue of the Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline (PATH) be put into the New Jersey record.

PATH Allegheny Virginia Transmission Corp. asked permission from a Virginia regulatory agency to withdraw a proposal to build a 276-mile, $1.8 billion high-voltage transmission line from West Virginia to Maryland, due to a weak economy and a growing energy conservation movement.

PSE&G, in a brief letter to the BPU on Thursday, said problems in Virginia and West Virginia had no impact on its power needs or the Susquehanna-Roseland project. But the board demanded a detailed analysis from PSE&G as soon as possible.

“We are disappointed in the board’s action to delay the decision on this important electric reliability project. We are considering our options to ensure that the region’s electric customers have the safe, highly reliable service they have come to expect,” said PSE&G spokeswoman Karen Johnson.

Lawrence Ragonese may be reached at (973) 539-7910 or


State officials delay decision on PSE&G powerline for a month

By COLLEEN O’DEA • STAFF WRITER • January 16, 2010

NEWARK — The state Board of Public Utilities on Friday delayed for a month a decision on Public Service Electric & Gas Co.’s proposal to upgrade its transmission line through Morris, Sussex and Warren counties.

During a special meeting, the board unanimously voted to ask PJM Interconnection, the regional power transmission organization, to explain its position that the $750 million project is necessary.

The board is making the request in light of the recent withdrawal of a line project in Virginia because new forecasts show it will not be needed soon, and the delay of another project in Maryland for a re-evaluation of power need forecasts in that region.

In a letter sent Friday, the board asked whether PJM plans to conduct a needs review for PSE&G’s 47-mile Susquehanna-Roseland upgrade similar to the reviews in the other states, and to explain whether those two delays have any effect on the need for the project here.

Joseph L. Fiordaliso, the commissioner serving as hearing officer for the project, said that PJM’s brief, two-paragraph statement sent Thursday to the BPU affirming the project’s need was not enough.

“We need more than this summary statement. We need PJM to state how it reached this conclusion,” Fiordaliso said.

The delay cheered the 17 interveners, including several Morris and Sussex municipalities, the Montville Board of Education, environmentalists and a citizens group, all of which oppose PSE&G’s plan to add 500-kilovolt lines to towers reaching as tall as 195 feet. They had been unhappy that Pennsylvania authorities on Thursday approved the part of the line in that state.

“We hope they are going to get a sensitive analysis done. We hope that will show the line is not necessary,” said Dave Slaperud of the Stop the Lines citizens group.

“There is a safer and better way to do this,” said East Hanover Mayor Joseph Pannullo, who opposes the upgrade because he believes electromagnetic fields from the lines cause health problems.

Karen Johnson, a PSE&G spokeswoman, said the utility was discouraged by the delay.

“We are considering our options to ensure that the region’s electric customers have the safe, highly reliable service they have come to expect,” Johnson said.

One of those options is to bypass the state review and seek approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which can evaluate and OK a project if local authorities have not acted within a year, as is now the case here.

Efforts by PSE&G to settle differences with officials along the line by paying amounts ranging from $200,000 to more than $400,000 to cover costs associated with construction were largely rejected — only three of 16 towns affected agreed to the settlements.

Colleen O’Dea: 973-428-6655;


Susquehanna-Roseland line approved with conditions in Pennsylvania; New Jersey vote is delayed

By Express-Times staff
January 15, 2010, 8:38PM

The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities today postponed its vote on a Pennsylvania-New Jersey power line that would cross the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area and a portion of Hardwick Township.

Its delay came a day after the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission granted conditional approval to the Susquehanna-Roseland project linking the Berwick, Pa., area to Roseland, N.J.

Allentown-based PPL Electric Utilities proposes building the Pennsylvania portion of the 500-kilovolt line, with Public Service Enterprise Group picking up the project at the New Jersey border and continuing it along an existing 230-kilovolt line.

PSE&G says the 130-mile line is mandated by PJM Interconnection, the regional entity responsible for planning the transmission system, to meet projected regional demand. Its $900 million to $1 billion cost would be shared among the 51 million electric customers in the PJM region covering 13 states and the District of Columbia, according to the utility company.

Pennsylvania officials’ approval is not final until an order is entered by the utility commission. Among conditions imposed in Thursday’s votes are that construction may not begin until the National Park Service issues necessary permits to build in the Delaware Water Gap area. The park service has said it does not expect to issue the permits until May 2012. The commission’s approval would expire in three years unless construction has begun, under another condition of approval.

The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities voted unanimously today to consider new evidence on the need for the project, particularly to determine if demand truly exists for the additional power. Board members said they expect to rule on approval within 30 days.

The delay follows a request by PATH Allegheny Virginia Transmission Corp. to a Virginia regulatory agency to withdraw its proposal to build a 276-mile, $1.8 billion high-voltage transmission line from West Virginia, through Virginia and to Maryland. The company cited a weak economy and growing energy conservation movement.

Fur was flying last night, late when I got a chance to check in, whew…

PJM – last minute filing

PSEG – Response to PJM filing

Environmental Intervenors Response to PJM

Municipal Intervenors Response to PJM

I’ll be typing notes as we go… we’ll see.

The room is filling up, almost standing room only…

I’ll correct all the typos later…

January 15, 2010

Pledge of allegiance

All five present

Next meeting 1/20 @ 10 a.m.

Special meeting regarding Petition of PSEG re Susquehanna-Roseland line

Ken Sheehan – background – description of project


Cost – portion for NJ ratepayers not clear, open issue at FERC

PSE&G claims must be in service by 2012

Extremely complicated

Key questions – need for the project, specifically to resolve reliability problems

Oct 15 2009 – PJM reaffirmed need for PATH, MAPP and S-R

Board became aware of changes in need for PATH line – VA-PATH has asked for withdrawal. Reduction in scope and severity of NERC violqations, PJM will work through planning process

This has raised issue of similar issues with this line

Fiordaliso gave official notice to these issues.  PSE&G did not object to entry

Firodaliso also gave official notice re:  MAPP suspension.  MAPP – PJM said it needed to reanalyze need for MAPP because it assumed PATH

There has been a flurry of comments regarding official notice these last few days.  Most notably was two paragraph letter from PJM witness – delays will not in any way change the need for Susquehanna-Roseland.

Intervenors have noted that this conclusory statement needs substantiation.

Fiordaliso has formally recommended that the Board take notice of PATH and MAPP.

Firodaliso – (these guys are talking way too fast)

One word that soood out was flurry. I was the prsiding commissioner. During the proceedings we have held multiple public eharings, held a full evidentiary hearing. We have provided opportunities to prepare Pos Hearing briefs, filed only on 1/6/2010. It was inthese briefs that the PATH and MAPP issues were first raised. Because of the importance of this issue, I felt it was appropriate to bring this to the full Baord. My immediate question, shared by the other commissioners, is whether this information has the ability to significantly change the underlying factual situation of these lines. If PJM is no longer certain that MAPP and PAH are no longer needed at this time. I believe our board would be remiss not to consider whether PJM would feel the same about S-R and how that would affect NJ. The changes to PATH aned MAPP are extraordinary, this is not minor updates and changes (Comm. Fox nods vigorously). One of the core analyhsis of this is need, are the lines  needed for the protection of transmission. PJM is able to provide expert analysis. The board would be remiss in not taking this into consideration. PJM has sent a letter that nothing ash changed. (quoting from PJM letter, above is link) “For clarity and in order to avoid any confusion, PJM as the independent transmission authority, that the factors driving PATH and MAPP do not in any way change need for S-R in NJ as detailed in my testimony as set forth in this docket.” We appreciate that input, nevertheless we need more than a this suumary statement. We need to have PJM to explain how they reached that conclusion, and in a way that will allow all parties to comment.

Amend recommendation — recommend to Board that we issue secretary’s letter to PJM asking for their input, notably we should seek and receive detailed confirmation that despite changes in map and path lines no changes have occurred in its analysis tof SF that would materially alter PJM analysis. provide this as soon as possible to allow for our review and provide opportunities for all parties in this case to see the results. This will allow the board to make an informed decision.

I do not want anyone to have the opinion that the board will issue a decision today. One of the obstacles is that the Board may need additional facts, and this is where we currently find ourselves.

Everyone associated with this project has been working as hard as humanly possible to bring this to an efficient and proper conclusion. The size of the record and the significance of this case make it essential that the Commission have a full record and the depth of understanding to understand the positions advanced by all of the parties. This always takes time, with a record as voluminous and contested as this. I hope we can get a commitment from all the commissioners, we can get a commitment to have a decision within 30 days. This time-frame represents a fair balancing of the Board’s responsibilities and the Board’s desire to have this as fair as possible.


In my 11 years as commissioner, I’ve learned a few things. Transmission cases are never easy. I also know that I have rarely seen a record this large and with this many parties, and I’ve never seen it decided just 7-8 days of receipt of final briefs. The size of the record, the need to reach a decision, we will give commitment to render that decision. I will be spending part of my holiday reviewing this case! We need to balance needs of community and its residents, take the time, that’s correct approach.

PSEGE called me and informed me Ex PARTE , others commissioners were contacted as well. (all were nodding at this statement). I believe our course of action is the correct one. Asking PJM for formal communication as to how they reached their decision,  I am confident it will be a better decision because of the steps we’ve taken today.


I am also in agreement with the presiding Commissioner. I have to tell you that I have not been contacted by any parties. I know a few things that I’m in support of, improving reliability, making sure we have complete reliability, and besides that, economic opportunities, infrastructure improvement so state can grow, I am looking forward to the 30 day deadline, so that the state of NJ will come to conclusion on this decision. I too am looking forward to the reports, make sure this is the right project at the right time and that the ratepayers are not on the hook for every bit of the cost to produce this line. I am in support of Commissioenr Fiordaliso’s request.


I agree, I am not prepared to cast vote on this today based on volume of information. I do believe that I will be prepared within the next 30 days.


I want to thank follow commissioners and staff for work and thanks to Commissioner Fioredaliso. I’m in strong agreement with Commissioners, record is huge, the transcript is almost 1200 pages, in past ,  the government has to strive to get it right, for the state and people we represent. Good government requires we take notice of these developments and consider changes in transmission system, failure would be failure to do our jobs correctly. We are not ready to make decision at this time, we just closed record a week ago, and there are significant issues to get into, whether need has evolved, this is not a simple matter, it is not obvious. Resonable minds can and have differed, I’m aware PSEG has a construction schedule, but I am confident that this will not impact their schedule. I’m aware that there’s a FERC deadline, but I believe this action is necessary and propery. We can make this decision within a month. We can maek a final determination in the meantime.


I make a motion, take judicial of information as outlined, and a secretary’[s letter be sent to PJM seeking additional information


I second that.


I also want to note that we are refirming Commissioner’s 30 day deadline.

Passed unanimously.


Here’s the letter they sent, missing the boat…

BPU Secretary letter to PJM

Delaware’s IRP for Delmarva

January 11th, 2010

The Delaware’s Public Service Commission (at least they still call it “public service”!!!) is holding meetings Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday on the Delmarva Power and Light Integrated Resource Plan.

Tuesday, January 12 @ 7 p.m.

Carvel State Office Building, 2nd Floor Auditorium
820 N French Street
Wilmington – DE, 19801

Wednesday, January 13 @ 7 p.m.

DTCC – Owens Campus Theatre – Arts and Science Building
Rt 18, Seashore Hwy
Georgetown – DE, 19947

Thursday, January 14, @ 7 p.m.

Cannon Building, Ste 100
861 Silver Lake Blvd
Dover – DE, 19904

But wait… no plan has been filed, no plan is due to be filed until May…



Nothing there.  So let’s look at the DPS IRP site:



Really, check it out, I defy you to find one thing on Docket 10-02!



So I says to myself, I says, “There’s LOTS that needs to be a part of this Delmarva IRP!”  Particularly where when I commented way back in December 2008 that demand was down and when would Delmarva produce updated forecasts and nada, they wouldn’t even address it.  Todd Goodman just got pissy, to the point where he deserved one of these:


And so today, here’s what I sent in, gathering up some of the choice documents from this New Jersey Susquehanna-Roseland transmission fight, and wrapped it up and tied it with a bow:

Overland IRP Comment – 1-11-10

Exhibit C – MAPP Request to Suspend – Jan 8, 2010

Exhibit D – PATH-VA Press Release – Withdrawal 12-29-09

Exhibit E – PJM PATH Sensitivity Analysis & Cover Letters

Exhibit F – Letter NJ Comm. Fiordaliso – Official Notice 1-6-10

Exhibit G – Offshore wind and transmission Memorandum of Understanding

So now it’s your turn — it’s a blank slate!

Send Comments on Delmarva’s nonexistent IRP to:

Be sure to note on the Comment that it’s for IRP Docket 10-02.



It’s official, well, semi-official, there’s still no word from the Board of Public Utilities itself!

Here’s PSEG’s objection and their missive asking that the time to respond to Commissioner Fiordaliso’s request for comment be cut short:

PSEG Request to Shorten Time to Contest Official Notice

Dig the last paragraph:

Accordingly, PSE&G respectfully requests that the Board shorten the time to comment from January 16 to January 12 and further requests that the Commission act on the evidence before it and approve the Petition on January 15 without further delay.

Oh, right, yes, ma’am, we’ll get right to it!  They must be dreaming…

And as if that weren’t funny enough, here’s the PSEG argument against oral argument:

PSEG Response to Motion for Oral Argument

… but here it is in B&W:

BPU delays decision on power line


The state’s Board of Public Utilities is delaying its decision on the proposed Susquehanna-Roseland power line while it factors in the withdrawal of a similar power line proposal in Virginia.

The board was slated to decide on the New Jersey half of the power line on Jan. 15. However, the board pushed back the decision date, after opponents filed last-minute paperwork about Virginia’s proposed PATH.

The new evidence cites predicted decreases for regional energy needs delaying another regional power transmission project. Specifically, the Susquehanna-Roseland opponents are now citing recent setbacks for similar “reliability projects,” due to reports that power demands are down, and the need for power transmission lines is declining, the opponents say.

In late December, the PATH Allegheny Virginia Transmission Corp. moved to withdraw its 276-mile, $1.8 billion high-voltage transmission line proposal which would run through West Virginia and Virginia. The company says it will resubmit the plans in the fall. The reported reasons are the decreased demand during the recession and energy conservation.

The developments in Virginia could now factor into the Garden State decision. BPU Commissioner Joseph Fiordaliso wrote a letter Wednesday to all the involved parties announcing that the recent PATH request would be factored into the evidence for the Susquehanna-Roseland line. Fiordaliso set a deadline of Jan. 15 for the lawyers in the case to contest the new evidence, or otherwise comment on how it should factor into the pending decision.

Catherine Tamasik, the attorney for a seven-town coalition opposing the lines, said it could be a positive development for her clients — but it was too early to tell what the new evidence inclusion could mean.

“The BPU is certainly aware of the changing energy environment, and they’re going to take a look at it,” she said Friday.