Plains & Eastern EIS released today!
November 4th, 2015
Hot off the press,here at the Plains & Eastern EIS site!
Appendix Q contains the Comments and responses to those Comments:
Here’s a very problematic statement from the intro letter:
Why? Most improper in that the EIS is not supposed about a “preferred alternative,” which goes too far towards bias of a supposedly neutral party. It’s pretty basic — the purpose of an EIS is to inform the record, and the decision makers, of the IMPACTS. It is not a decisional document, it is not the basis for a recommendation. Add to that the lack of a thorough evaluation of need, which, particularly in this case, is to be the deciding factor. A project of this magnitude doesn’t go forward just because, or because the developers want it. That’s not enough. It’s about need. If you search the Table of Contents, there is only one mention of “need” in the intro, talking about the “need” for an EIS, and there is one section in the text, entitled “Department of Energy Purpose and Need.” There doesn’t seem to be any evaluation of need for the P-R-O-J-E-C-T!
Here ’tis:
And HERE’S a nearly verbatim cut and paste of their email, release of yet another FEIS from the Department of Energy:
|
|
|
||
|
||
|
|
Xcel’s new rate increase request
November 2nd, 2015
Xcel’s cost of electricity is down. Yet they want more money from us, 9.8% over the next 3 years, with the average residential customer’s 675 kW/hr bill to go up $11 a month. WHAT?
Meanwhile, last year at the legislature, the biggest of the big customers got a special rate category and special lower rates. WHAT?
The above graph is from Chuck Burdick’s testimony — after dealing with him in the Goodhue Wind case, I couldn’t resist checking out his testimony (Application, 2A2 – MYRP).
So if Xcel Energy was authorized a certain ROE, and only earned a much lesser ROE, does that mean we should make up the difference? Also from Burdick’s testimony:
Were this “free market” the response would be that the company should contract, that there are too many cooks in that kitchen, that the capital expenses not for our use, such as this big transmission build-out, should not occur, and we should not have to pay for them.
Let’s take a look at the drivers, where they’re running short — do we want to pay for this? From the Application 1:
The initial filing in this new rate case is there for the reading, dig in, I’m sure there’s something you’ll enjoy.
Just go HERE TO PUC’S SEARCH DOCKETS PAGE and search for PUC docket 15-826, opened today.
In the STrib today:
Xcel seeks 9.8 percent rate hike in Minnesota over three years
Menahga Transmission Comments just filed
November 2nd, 2015
Hot off the press, just filed:
Whew, now back on the road!
Others filed today:













