Xcel demand down, down, down

September 28th, 2014

arrowdown

I’ve been saying this for so many years, that electric demand is down, down, down, and instead, Xcel Energy (and all the others) have been saying it’s going UP, UP, UP (even though Mikey Bull said years ago that they wouldn’t need power for a while), and they’re applying for and getting Certificates of Need for all these permits for utility infrastructure that are obviously designed to market and sell the surplus, and the Public Utilities pretends to be oblivious (I say “pretends” because I cannot believe they’re that unaware and uninformed.).

This is a must read:

Xcel Compliance Filing_CN-13-606_20149-103251-02

Here’s the short version from Xcel:

XcelPeak

2024 is expected to be about what it was back in 2007, the industry peak year.  DOH!  But note this — there’s a “small capacity surplus in 2016.”  DOH!

And given the surplus which we’ve known has been present and looming larger, that’s why they then ask for withdrawal of the Certificate of Need for the Prairie Island uprate because it isn’t needed (and really, that was just what, 80 MW or so?  Or 80 MW x 2 reactors, 160 MW?).  If they don’t need that small uprate, why on earth would they need so much more?

DOH!

But what do I know…

Hollydale Transmission Line was clearly not needed, and they withdrew that application…

CapX 2020 transmission was based on a 2.49% annual increase in demand, and for Hampton-La Crosse in part supposedly based on Rochester and La Crosse demand numbers, yeah right, we know better, but that was their party line.  Again, DOH, it didn’t add up to needing a big honkin’ 345 kV transmission line stretching from the coal plants in the Dakotas to Madison and further east, but who cares, let’s just build it…

ITC MN/IA 345 kV line — the state said the 161 kV should be sufficient to address transmission deficiencies in the area, but noooooo, DOH, that wouldn’t address the “need” for bulk power transfer (the real desire for the line).

Here’s a bigger picture of the bottom line (I’m accepting this as a more accurate depiction, not necessarily the TRUTH, but close enough for electricity), keeping in mind that these are PROJECTIONS, and that they’re adding a “Coincident Peak adjustment” which should be included in the “peak” calculations):

Xcel Resource Need Assessment 2014

Notice the only slight reduction in coal capacity, just 19 MW, nuclear stays the same, a 320 MW decrease in gas, a 128 MW reduction in Wind, Hydro, Biomass, which I hope includes garbage burners and the Benson turkey shit plant , slight increase in solar of 18 MW, and Load Management also a slight increase of only 80 MW.  This is Xcel Energy with its business as usual plan, which has to go.  We can do it different, and now is the time.

Will someone explain why we paid so much to uprate Monticello, and paid to rebuild Sherco 3?

DOH!

From the archives:

500+ give LS Power a piece of their mind

October 20th, 2009

2012 NERC Long Term Reliability Assessment

May 7th, 2013

PJM Demand is DOWN!

November 15th, 2012

PJM members set new record…

August 20th, 2011

pjm-logo-photo-croppedashx

A little birdie asked a question about need for Susquehanna-Roseland recently, and got me thinking.  This PJM press release came out a while ago and I forgot to post it.  It’s a legit PJM press release with an astonishing and crucial and decidedly “against interest” admission:

THEY ARE NOT USING DEMAND RESPONSE TO REDUCE LOAD!!!

Well, that makes business sense, they’re there to sell power, why refrain from selling it if they can!  They’re also wanting to build more transmission, which they can’t do if they can’t prove need!  And what better way to prove need than having a record peak demand?  But we know what they’re doing…  How many MW do they have in demand response, DSM, interruptibles, demand reduction by any name?  How much lower would the peak demand be if they had used it as they should?

Here’s their press release:

PJM and members set new record for peak power use

And here’s that telling admission:

Demand response was not called on to reduce load.

Demand response was not called on to reduce load.

Demand response was not called on to reduce load.

Demand response was not called on to reduce load.

Demand response was not called on to reduce load.

Demand response was not called on to reduce load.

Demand response was not called on to reduce load.

Demand response was not called on to reduce load.

Demand response was not called on to reduce load.

Demand response was not called on to reduce load.

… once more with feeling…

Demand response was not called on to reduce load.

How dare they… and then to claim a “RECORD” peak demand…