Legalectric

Summit Pipeline Solutions, LLC, has been threatening to file an application for a pipeline, well, pipelines, several, around Iowa, and also southern Minnesota in Jackson and Martin counties, in Nebraska, South Dakota, and getting into North Dakota. The Iowa docket was opened up in October, people have been commenting and objecting.

CLICK HERE for the Iowa Utility Board docket summary!

The Iowa Petition was filed last Friday, you can find it and all the appendices at the link above.

The Petition filed by Summit Carbon Solutions was so detail-lite that I filed this, with some basic questions to be answered, basic info to be provided:

Here’s what I think they need to consider, a very narrow part of it, but based on what I learned through the Mesaba Project CO2 capture fiasco:

• The total CO2 generation of each facility proposed to utilize this pipeline;
• The tons/year of CO2 to be captured from each facility proposed to utilize this pipeline;
• The percentage of total CO2 generation at each facility to be captured and shipped from each facility proposed to utilize this pipeline;
• Megawatts of CO2 capture technology at each facility and whether there is sufficient capacity in facility transmission to operate carbon capture equipment;

• Efficiency impact of CO2 capture to each facility proposed to utilize carbon capture;
• Pumping stations at each facility to bring psig to pumping level and megawatt requirements of each;
• Disclosure of transmission load and capacity and whether there is adequate transmission capacity at CO2 generation facilities to handle CO2;
• Locations and megawatts of each pumping station along the pipelines’ approximately 681 miles traversing Iowa;
• Disclosure of transmission infrastructure, load, and capacity for pumping stations at each location along the pipelines’ approximately 681 miles traversing Iowa;
• Disclosure of company’s plan for acquisition of land for pumping stations and transmission lines to power pumping stations;
• Megawatt requirements for all the pumping stations combined for total parasitic load;
• Disclosure and consideration of CO2 impacts of increased electric generation required to capture CO2, pump into pipeline; pump through pipeline, and pump into earth at receiving end;
• Disclosure and consideration of annual operations and maintenance costs.
• Disclosure of locations and total area of land needed and costs for easements and fee purchases;
• Disclosure and consideration of cost per ton of CO2 capture, pipeline, pumping stations, and transmission capital and interconnection costs, and easements for all infrastructure.

That should keep them busy for a while. I attached the Mesaba Project proposal to give them an idea that these considerations are REAL, and that these CO2 proposals are not all they’re cracked up to be. CO2 capture is difficult and expensive, even small amounts cost a lot in dollars, and costs a lot in efficiency, and that’s not even getting into pipelines sending it somewhere. Yet they had this vision… a nightmare:

And the important details weren’t revealed then, and for sure aren’t now. From Mesaba Project’s Exhibit EE1067, p. 20:

Details matter, facts matter, and what’s hidden here matters.

Meanwhile, back in Minnesota, anticipating an application of some sort, the Public Utilities Commission has requested comments on whether the definition of “hazardous” for pipelines should include “CO2.”

INITIAL COMMENTS DUE TODAY! JUST 2 HOURS LEFT!

But really, look at that — the only thing they think is worth addressing is amending the definition of “hazardous liquid.” Good grief… we need CO2 specific rules.

My initial comment:

And then after a quick review of the Summit Carbon Solutions Petition, got this filed today, with the Excelsior Energy Mesaba Project bogus proposal for CO2 capture and sequestration (to the plant gate!!! What then? They didn’t say… ahem…), so I let the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission know what I’d filed in Iowa, not that they care, and revived Excelsior Energy’s Mesaba Project exhibit EE1067, their bogus CO2 capture proposal, TO THE PLANT GATE:

Once more with feeling:

Details matter, facts matter, and what’s hidden matters.

There’s a Climate and Energy Finance and Policy committee meeting next Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 10:30 a.m.

TUNE IN HERE!

Why? Because they’ll be talking about transmission. “Transmission: Challenges, Solutions and Legislative Options for the Grid”

And a bill labeled “Permitting Reform” has been proposed which is up for discussion, and read it, it is SO frustration in that it PRESUMES transmission is needed.

JUST SAY NO!

HF XXX (Stephenson) Permitting Reform – 1/27/2022

This has got to go:

Sections 7, 8, and 19 are just so off, and I let them know:

For that Subd. 8 Transmission planning in advance of generation retirement, here’s what I suggested:

Simple huh…

WE DON’T NEED NO STINKIN’ TRANSMISSION!!

I also referenced and attached, from the 2021 Biennial Transmission Plan docket, Commerce-DER’s Information Request 1, which asked:

The response to A was NO, over and over and over for each of the transmission owning companies (and then the response to B was uniformly “N/A.”)

So tune in, and find out why on earth they think we need transmission. WE DON’T NEED NO STINKIN’ TRANSMISSION. THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR EVEN THINKING THAT THERE’S ANY REASON FOR CAPX 2050.

Oh, but the FERC approved 10.xx% return on investment… riiiiiiiiiight…

If you’re interested in letting them know how you feel about this proposal, fire off a missive by early Monday so it will get to them in time to digest before Tuesday’s meeting:

I sent mine to the author, Rep. Zach Stephenson, and the Committee administrator, and then copied all committee members, and you can cut and paste, easy-peasy:

rep.zack.stephenson@house.mn, Committee Administrator <mike.molzhan@house.mn>, rep.jamie.long@house.mn, rep.patty.acomb@house.mn, rep.chris.swedzinski@house.mn, rep.robert.bierman@house.mn, rep.greg.boe@house.mn, rep.shelly.christensen@house.mn, rep.mary.franson@house.mn, rep. glenn.gruenhagen@house.mn, rep.athena.hollins@house.mn, rep.frank.hornstein@house.mn, rep.spencer.igo@house.mn, rep.fue.lee@house.mn, rep.todd.lippert@house.mn, rep.dave.lislegard@house.mn, rep.shane.mekeland@house.mn, rep.jeremy.munson@house.mn, rep.rena.moran@house.mn

p.s. MISO is getting ready to unleash the new MTEP, so I figure this is a good place to park this, from July, 2021:

20200414-PSC-Item-07-Transmission-Cost-Estimation-Guide-for-MTEP-2020_DRAFT_April_clean441565 Download

An email just in from the Dept. of Energy, cut and pasted, THEIR content, not mine. Do send in comments:

RFI At-A-Glance

We’re more than halfway into the response period for our Request for Information (RFI) on using a consent-based siting process to identify federal interim storage facilities. Ready to share your thoughts? You still have five weeks left to respond!

What

We are requesting information on how to use a consent-based siting process to site Federal facilities for the temporary, consolidated storage of spent nuclear fuel.

Who

We anticipate that the following groups may be interested in responding to the RFI:

• Communities
• Governments at the local, State, and Tribal levels;
• Members of the public;
• Energy and environmental justice groups;
• Organizations or corporations; and
• Other stakeholders

We especially welcome insight from people, communities, and groups that have historically not been well-represented in these discussions.

See the full RFI by clicking here. Translated versions of the RFI can also be found here.

How

Interested parties may submit comments electronically to consentbasedsiting@hq.doe.gov. More detailed instructions can be found in the RFI. You can also check out the draft consent-based siting process and the summary of public comments referenced in the RFI at energy.gov/consentbasedsiting.

When

Responses to the RFI must be received by March 4, 2022, by 5:00 p.m. (ET).

Request for Information

The Sturtevant Street project meeting was last Thursday night, and few neighbors were there. HEADS UP, NEIGHBORS!

The project has been postponed for a couple years, but for this spring, 2022, it seems to be a GO! The plan is to dig up and redo utilities and the street, from West Avenue over to Prairia, and Pine over to Putnam. It looks like a cost of at least $6,000 per house, and a spring and summer of discontent. What we did learn with the “Great West Wall” was that the City did work with people to make sure they knew the schedule, could access their homes, and for sure this will not be as complicated as the Great West Wall project:

CONTACT RYAN ILLA AND ASK TO BE PUT ON STURTEVANT PROJECT NOTICE LIST — THEY SEND OUT EMAILS AND UPDATES REGULARLY. ryan.illa@ci.red-wing.mn.us

Sturtevant in Red Wing has been a mess for a while, full of constantly refilled potholes. It’s narrow, with parking on only one side. We’re on the corner of West and Sturtevant, so impacts won’t be as bad, as we have a driveway on West, not just the short one on Sturtevant, so parking won’t be an issue here. However, the assessment? Just a few years ago, we got hit with the “Great West Wall” project assessment, and now this one, whew, it’s going to hurt!

Apparently they made some mistake in calculations regarding the sewer and water, I believe, they admitted this, $369 worth, so I’m waiting for the correction, but looking at the map, I think the 140′ on the north side is also off, but I can’t verify, because that’s not online anymore – click and see!!! We’ll be checking that out. Alan did some measurements after we got the house.

Ryan Illa is the Project Manager (651) 385-3628 and (651) 260-5956, ryan.illa@ci.red-wing.mn.us

Jay Owens is the Grand Pooh-bah in City Engineering Dept: (651) 385-3625 and jay.owens@ci.red-wing.mn.us

Red Wing is offering FREE televising of your sewer connection. Call Steve Thoms (651) 385-3680, (651) 380-0470, or steve.thoms@ci.red-wing.mn.us, to schedule. This is helpful if you’re considering, or NEED TO, replace service to the house, and city only goes ONE FOOT past the sidewalk. The rest is up to the homeowner.

If you need to replace service to your house, get on the plumber’s list early.

Rough schedule:

• February 14 – Public hearing prior to council formal approval
• April – May 2022 – “Private utilities work” (not clear what that means)
• May 2022 – begin work on the project
• Fall 2022 – project over, with luck trees will be planted in fall.
• 2023 – Assessments start to hit.

Assessments are an issue, because in these times of very, very low interest, the city’s interest rate to spread it out is way too high. Very few people are able to cough up that amount of money, looks like about $7,000 per house, before it goes into “payment” mode and they start charging interest. I’ve called Marshall Hallock, City Finance (651.385.3602 or marshall.hallock@ci.red-wing.mn.us), and will keep on this so Council is aware that this is a problem. If the City’s interest rate is an issue for you, CALL AND MAKE IT KNOWN! They’re not mind readers.

Sturtevant Street needs to be redone, the storm system needs to be extended up the hill, and yeah, we will need to replace our house service (UGH!), no doubt about it. The money end of it, though, needs attention.

The Supreme Court did the right thing!! From New York Times: In Rebuke to Trump, Supreme Court Allows Release of Jan. 6 Files:

Here’s the Supremes’ opinion: