Legalectric

Julie Jorgensen says the focus of Excelsior Energy’s sales pitch will now be Municipal Utilities…  MMUA is sponsoring Mesaba dog & pony shows to Municipal Utilities… torturously long dog & pony shows about Mesaba…  selling Mesaba… pushing Mesaba… arm twisting about Mesaba?  WTF???  Well, we all know how much Pawlenty loves the Mesaba Project.

OK folks, let’s connect the dots  between Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Bill Glahn, Minnesota Municipal Power Agency, Excelsior Energy’s Mesaba Project… and how does Minnesota Municipal Utilities Association fit in (could Kadermas be back there?  Naaaaaaah…)???

We all know about Gov. Tim Pawlenty, the Green Chameleon:

Governor Pawlenty announces Bill Glahn as Director of Minnesota Office of Energy Security.

…  nevermind, that’s a different “Bill Glahn” (ain’t google fun?)

We know the Minnesota Office of Energy Security, MOES, the part of Commerce that’s now charged with doing Power Plant (and xmsn) siting (Press Release – Gov. Pawlenty Announces Energy Initiatives, Jan. 17, 2008):

Prior to MOES, Bill Glahn was, according to the press release above, at Minnesota Municipal Power Agency.

MMPA Link

And that means he was also Dahlen Berg:  CLICK HERE FOR BILL GLAHN CV

From Dahlen, Berg’s site, here’s their explanation of their relation to MMPA:

Management Services
Dahlen, Berg & Co. serves as Agent for and performs all management and operational functions for the Minnesota Municipal Power Agency (MMPA). Some of the functions we perform for MMPA include: day-to-day and long-term management and planning services, schedule and dispatch of the MMPA’s resources, billing, and accounting.

Toadies all.  It’s like Minnesota Rural Electric Association’s connection with CapX 2020 and GRE…

So Minnesota Municipal Utilities Association is doing dog & pony shows trying to sell Mesaba.  HOW STUPID DO THEY THINK MUNICIPAL UTILITIES ARE?   They can read the Mesaba Project ALJ’s decision, they can understand the meaning of TOO RISKY, they can understand the meaning of COSTS WAY TOO MUCH, they can understand the meaning of NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  The Mesaba Project is a real DUH!  IT’S TOO ABSURD TO EVEN CONSIDER!

ALJ Decision – Mesaba Project April 12, 2007

And knowing that Green Chameleon Tim Pawlenty is a toadie for Excelsior Energy and Excelsior’s Mesaba Project, knowing the extent to which he’ll promote this stupider than words can convey project, does anyone know why?  What’s in it for him?  What do they have on him?  Why would he risk credibility and reputation supporting this utter bullshit project?  What’s the rest of the story here?

Every now and then, something still surprises me, and here’s today’s surprise… a eagle-eye cohort (with a snow day by the computer? If so, snow therefore can be a good thing) found these links which make me wonder if our Commissioners at the PUC are paying attention to the record of the Mesaba case, if they’re sleeping through they’re NARUC meetings, or both!  It’s the PUC, it’s NARUC, whatever are they thinking?

NARUC (National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners) has a subcommittee called… are you ready… “Clean Coal and Carbon Sequestration.”

CLICK HERE FOR LIST OF MEMBERS

And look who’s there from Minnesota, Commissioners and Staff:

Phyllis Reha
Minnesota Public Utilities Commission
phyllis.reha@state.mn.us

David C. Boyd
Minnesota Public Utilities Commission
david.c.boyd@state.mn.us

Bob Cupit
Minnesota Public Utilities Commission
Bob.Cupit@state.mn.us

Here’s NARUC’s Coal Generation Technology Primer, which you have to read to believe…

Coal Generation Technologies

Minnesota’s Excelsior Energy Mesaba Project was THE first in this IGCC wave to be vetted with cost information somewhat available to the public.  So USE IT!  But no…  Despite all these folks from our Public Utilities Commission who know intimately what a disaster coal gasification is, a la Excelsior Energy’s Mesaba Project, and who are on this Coal Gasification Committee, this NARUC organization that they belong to is putting out information as a “resource” that is way off base.  It’s bad enough that they’re on this committee at all because it lends credibility to a losing and not-feasible technology, but this committee’s cost information so far off that it makes me gasp.

Here’s the NARUC chart from that “Primer” for various coal costs both per kW and kWhr, and see for yourself:

Again, the full report (this chart is on p. 2):

Coal Generation Technologies

So, will someone please explain to me why they are saying that the cost of IGCC is $1,430-1,977/kW, and worse and more specifically, why the Conoco Phillips cost is $1,733/kW when we all know that the Mesaba Project, in 2005 dollars, was estimated at $3,593/kW?  Why aren’t David Boyd, Phyllis Reha and Bob Cupit correcting NARUC staff about this claring error, a cost estimate that’s got to increase 100% to get close in 2005 dollars, and it’s gone higher since?  Aren’t these NARUC people checking the projects that their members are regulating?

And then there’s the kWhr cost, also outrageous.  They’re saying that kWhr cost of IGCC is 5.13-8.05 cents/kWhr.  Once more with feeling, here’s the cost chart from Dr. Amit’s testimony:

CLICK HERE for Dr. Amit’s Rebuttal Testimony, p. 24, from whence this chart came.

CLICK HERE for wind/gas combo info from Shulte’s SDEIA report.

…and then there’s this continuing crap about Carbon Capture and Storage, and the NARUC chart has a column for CCS, claiming that IGCC with CO2 capture is $1,890-2,668/kW capital cost, and 10.29-11.04/kWhr.  First problem is that they’re acting  as if it were happening, and this is something even the DOE admits is not here and now and is not going to be available for a long, long time, so how can they presume?  Second, the column is labeld as “with CO2 capture” and doesn’t address storage but there’s no clarification that in industry modeling, they only address capture and transport to the gate, and NOT storage, implicitly acknowledging that storage is not even contemplated.  I’m not going to waste more time on this one, grrrrrrrrrrrr…

And it gets worse — CO2 capture for Supercritical Pulverized Coal, Supercritical, Ultra-Supercritical, Subcritical Circulating Fluid Bed…. oh, PUH-LEEEEZE… to presume CO2 capture for pulverized coal is … how else to say it… NUTS! How do they propose this be done?

It’s irresponsible to promote these delusions.   Coal Generation Technologies was written by NARUC Staff Miles Keogh and Julia Friedman of the Grants & Research Department got $$$ from the U.S. EPA.  PLEASE start digging, even just scratching the surfact, and you’ll see!  Get IGCC cost information from each of those Commissions with IGCC proceedings before it and you’ll see, and I would think  that info is readily available to you.

Chair Boyd, Commissioner Reha, and the legendary Mr. Bob Cupit… will you please straighten out NARUC as to the facts of coal gasification, specifically cost and CO2 CCS?

Yes, the only good coal gasification plant is a dead coal gasification plant. Coal gasification just doesn’t make any sense, and even project proposers are figuring that out!

Here it is in the Chicago Tribune:

Plans dropped for Indiana coal gasification plant

Congrats to John Blair and Valley Watch for exposing the realities of this project.

Coal-gas project shelved

But potential Rockport, Ind., facility still may have life

By Bryan Corbin
Wednesday, November 26, 2008

INDIANAPOLIS — The developer of a $2 billion coal-to-gas plant proposed for Spencer County, Ind., has shelved the project — at least for now.

It was canceled after the developer failed to reach an agreement with utility companies for purchasing the substitute natural gas it would have produced.
Vectren Corp., which along with NIPSCO (Northern Indiana Public Service Co.), was negotiating to buy the substitute gas, said there is too much uncertainty over possible federal carbon regulations to commit to a 30-year purchase agreement now.

The proposed plant near Rockport, Ind., would have converted local coal into substitute natural gas and sold the “pipeline quality” gas to utility companies.

If built, the project could have brought 125 full-time jobs to Spencer County, not counting mining jobs to supply the coal and temporary construction jobs to build it, officials have said.

In light of the possibility of those jobs, Rockport Mayor Nedra Groves said she was disappointed by the news.

“It would have been beneficial work for the people here, and we need industry and infrastructure,” Groves said.

But the mayor hasn’t abandoned hope. The notice she received held out the possibility the project could be resumed once the economy improves.

Negotiations between the developer, Indiana Gasification LLC, and the two utilities continued for months, prompting several postponements of hearings before the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission.

On Tuesday, Larry J. Wallace, attorney for the developer, read aloud a statement asking the commission to discontinue consideration of the proposal, at least for now. The developer hopes the project can be revived in a different form and resubmitted later, he said.

“If any viable means can be found for developing the project, Indiana Gasification will certainly pursue them,” the statement said.

Two environmental groups, Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana and Valley Watch Inc., had intervened to oppose the developer’s plans. The groups contended the gasification project was a bad deal for ratepayers because it would have locked in 30-year contracts for substitute natural gas, even when the market price for natural gas might drop below that amount.

“We’ve never asked that the commission prevent them from coming back,” said Jerome Polk, attorney for Citizens Action Coalition and Valley Watch. “If (the developer) can come back with a workable proposal that makes sense, even my clients would be willing to sit down and talk if it makes sense and doesn’t hang ratepayers out to dry.”

The end of contract negotiations comes amid uncertainty over what the new Congress or the incoming administration of President-elect Barack Obama might require of coal plants, in terms of limiting their greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide. The likelihood that coal plants might have to capture the carbon dioxide and inject it underground, at unknown costs, adds to the uncertainty.

“That could have an impact on the price of gas this (plant) could yield, especially if the plant would have to capture carbon. That could impact the capital costs,” said Chase Kelley, Vectren Corp. communications director.

Vectren never was going to be a “significant purchaser” of the substitute gas, she said. But the uncertainty of federal carbon legislation was too much of an obstacle to reaching agreement on a 30-year purchasing contract.

A spokesman for NIPSCO would not be as specific on what derailed negotiations with the developer. “We actively negotiated . . . however, a business decision has been made to discontinue those negotiations,” NIPSCO spokesman Nick Meier said, adding the utility had made no financial commitment to the project.

The developer intended to apply for a federal loan guarantee to help finance the project along with private equity.

Two years ago, Gov. Mitch Daniels attended the Indiana Gasification announcement at Vectren headquarters in Evansville, and on Sept. 3 he specifically cited the plant as an example of clean-coal technology’s potential during an energy summit in Indianapolis.

“We understand that the developer is looking at other ways to continue the project,” the governor’s communications director, Jane Jankowski, said Tuesday.

Two legislative sessions in a row, state Rep. Russ Stilwell got bills passed to clear regulatory obstacles to the coal-to-gas plant.

“Obviously, I’m disappointed. We worked hard to get to this point,” said Stilwell, D-Boonville, whose House district includes the Rockport area. “I would call it a lost opportunity. A project of this opportunity only come around once every few decades.”

But Stilwell noted that the project is not dead unless the developer completely withdraws it. “Whatever we need to do to bring partners in, I’m committed to doing that,” Stilwell, D-Boonville, said.

For environmentalist John Blair, president of Valley Watch Inc., the developer’s announcement comes as no surprise, given the uncertainty about the project’s costs.

“In a word, ‘thrilled,'” Blair said of his reaction to the decision.

Indiana Gasification requested Tuesday that the Utility Regulatory Commission end its proceedings on the proposal, while leaving open the door to resubmitting the project later. Utility commission regulators have not ruled yet.

So what the hell is a “procedural reconsideration?” Today the PUC had the never-ending (until May 1, 2009) saga of Excelsior Energy’s Mesaba Project. The issue? Yet another Motion to Reconsider from Excelsior Energy, they don’t want to take NO for an answer.

November 25, 2008 Staff Briefing Papers

The PUC staff recommended reaching the hand toward the life-support plug, but not yanking it with a final decision:

Staff acknowledges the comments of Minnesota Power requesting the clarification of whether the Commission’s approval or denial of Excelsior’s petition for reconsideration at this time constitutes a final decision for purposes of appellate review. In the alternative, the Commission will not enter a final decision until May 1, 2009, the deadline for negotiations. As such, Staff believes that the most judicially efficient course would be for the Commission to grant the petition for reconsideration for procedural reasons and hold further consideration in abeyance until after May 1, 2009.

Briefing papers, p. 13. And so they voted unanimously for alternative 1:

Grant the petition for reconsideration and rehearing for procedural reasons and hold further consideration in abeyance until after May 1, 2009.

For the whole Excelsior Energy saga, GO HERE and search for Docket 05-1993. And if that’s not enough, search also for 06-668!

So we’re still holding… zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Another coal gasification bites the dust — yes, it took a coon’s age to get this posted, what can I say, the CapX hearings are taking up a lot of time… This was the best news in ages, continuing the theme that IGCC is a bad idea, too risky, too costly. This plant was one that seemed to have a lot of backing, which to me means that IGCC is done. When I’d posted about it, it garnered some wild NRG employee comments on this blog, ones that I hope that those employees’ bosses are aware of! I know NRG is watching, but I think some of their employees need to have their typing fingers taped together and/or not operate a computer while soused!

Here are a few articles with some choice comments:

From the Buffalo News:

Power Authority stops $1.6 billion plans for advanced coal plant at Tonawanda’s Huntley Station

Power Authority officials estimate that it would take an additional $175 million to $200 million per year in subsidies – on top of the significant aid already promised for the project – to bring the price of the electricity produced at the advanced coal plant down to the point where it could compete with other conventional sources of generation.

From newsday.com:

NYPA halts plans for clean-coal plant in Tonawanda

After pursuing various state grants and tax incentives, NYPA determined it is not possible to fully close the gap between what NYPA would have to pay for electricity and competitive market rates.

And from the Post Journal:

NYPA withdraws support for North Tonawanda clean coal project

”The economic, technological and regulatory obstacles are too great to warrant any further efforts at this time,” said Christine Pritchard, a NYPA spokeswoman.

… and…

NYPA officials were also uneasy about the technology. According to the company, there are only two IGCC plants operating nationwide, and 11 IGCC plants were either delayed or cancelled in 2007. In addition, the largest sequestration operation in the world is burying only 1 million tons of carbon dioxide underground annually, a third of what the NRG plant would be required to sequester – and carbon capture and storage technology has never been demonstrated off a clean coal power plant.

… and…

”It is also clear that an explicit and rigorous regulatory process with public support is a prerequisite for sequestration on a large scale. And while some amount of risk is necessary to prove new technology, the financial and environmental risk associated with this large-scale commercial power plant is simply too great,” the report concludes.

… and…

”Simply, at this time, the price gap is too large to overcome” said Pritchard of NYPA.

Tell us something we didn’t already know!!!