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?

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!!!