Legalectric

When considering this natural gas mess, and the potential impacts on Minnesota ratepayers, do note that the spike lasted for what, 3 days? Does that sound like screwed up infrastructure to you?? Looks to me to be more of a price-gouging opportunity. Bottom line? Demonstrate that the gas storage was used to mitigate impact.

I spent too much time watching the video of a Public Utilities Commission webcast of a special meeting (details here) specifically about this: Webcast

After the PUC Meeting, I filed a comment on the PUC Docket (G999/CI-21-135) focused on the need to dig into STORAGE, and CenterPoint’s 7 billion cubic feet stored underground in southern Minnesota:

And then next up was a Committee on Energy and Utilities Finance and Policy and the House Committee on Climate and Energy Finance and Policy.

Fired off a quick missive to the members for Joint Senate and House meeting on Natural Gas:

And that meeting was a major disappointment, very little time for questions and very little questioning, so fired this off too:

For some background, check out this “Natural Gas in Minnesota” from House Research (note p. 15, 2.2 billion cubic feet of natural gas storage).

The assumption that ratepayers will pay for this price spike is obscene. Demonstrate that the gas storage was used to mitigate impact. Then we can talk!

Minnesota Libraries can apply to be a part of this program, and need to apply and if participating, comply with reporting requirements:

https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/destinations/state_parks/partnerships/vehicle_permit_library_application.pdf

There are two main requirements to participate:

Red Wing Public Library did check this out, and Red Wing Public Library’s “director looked into the program and found that we cannot participate because Goodhue County does not meet the required demographic criteria.”

Well, drat…

Early on in the Grant County solar project, we dug into “heat island effect” and learned it is real and very little study has been done, and what has been doe has been in the desert, not in midwestern climate, not with midwestern vegetation. Everything says “more study is needed.” Yet Wisconsin, and to a lesser degree Minnesota, are siting LARGE solar projects without that “more study.”

Today an article popped up, and the timing is interesting, as just the last two weeks this has been raised in solar dockets in Wisconsin, the Grant County Solar (PSC Docket 9804-CE-100) and Wisconsin Power & Light’s docket to acquire SIX solar projects, including Grant County Solar (PSC Docket 6680-CE-182).

The article referenced this study, released in December, 2020:

There are a few parts that are striking, this sentence in particular:

Solar farms tend to promote more favorable conditions for tropical cyclone development.

This is testimony from Wisconsin PSC’s Burtley regarding heat island effect in the PSC’s 6680-CE-182 docket:

Well, that’s pretty clear!!

We put some studies into the Grant County Solar docket, 9804-CE-100:

These are, individually 5 a, b, and c, above:

More study, NOW! And yet, knowing there is not enough info, that more info is needed, Wisconsin’s Public Service Commission is siting thousands of acres of solar, ignoring the brownfield statute that would facilitate distributed generation, impacts be damned!

UPDATE: IT’S BAAAAAAAAAAACK!

Try www.nerc.com and this is what you get today!

And if you want the 2020 Reliability Assessment, at https://www.nerc.com/pa/RAPA/ra/Reliability%20Assessments%20DL/NERC_LTRA_2020_Errata.pdf, here’s what you get:

Here’s the downloaded NERC Long Term Reliability Assessment 2020:

OH NOOOOOO, I DIDN’T DOWNLOAD IT!! Here it is, thanks to Wayback:

NERC completely disappears. Is that weird or what? I’ve been posting the 2020 Reliability Assessment all over, because the extent of misinformation being pushed, folks trying to blame blackout on wind is absolutely a disinformation campaign, and the clear denial of ERCOT of any potential for reliability issues is stunning.

Here’s the ERCOT generation mix, p. 140 of the NERC Long Term Reliability Report:

And delusional paragraph on upper right of p. 140:

Got that first sentence? “ERCOT does not foresee any adverse reliability concerns for the Texas RE-ERCOT assessment area associated iwth fuel supply or fuel deliverability constraints.” Ummmmm… right…

Xcel Energy’s 10-K for 2020 is out:

Peak demand remains under 9,000MW:

Note the peak was 2006, we got close in 2011, but not above that 2006 peak. Right now, we’re 1,200MW below that 2006 peak, essentially the equivalent of Prairie Island nuclear plant’s two reactors.

We’ve got the surplus generation to make some choices, folks…