Legalectric

It’s fall, the sun is rising on the other side of the house and bluff now, and I’m not ready!  Getting out to enjoy fall as much as possible, and then Little Sadie and I are heading to St. Louis soon for BaronFest III (didn’t have one last year).  Maybe down to Arkansas to catch fall later!  This is the first BaronFest where I don’t have a German Shepherd, and I’m not sure how Little Sadie will fare.

It’s hard to feel motivated to work with all this transmission going up here in Minnesota.  Earlier in the summer, we went down through Wabasha, and south of Wabasha where CapX Hampton – La Crosse cuts across the Mississippi River to Alma, through La Crosse and checked out the Briggs Road substation, host to CapX and Badger Coulee transmission, to Cassville and Dubuque and back up further west, a tour of electric infrastructure.

Don’t they have enough?  If they’re shutting down this coal plant, why would they need transmission?  How about using that capacity… oh, right, they get that 12.38% or thereabouts for building transmission, that’s their primary revenue source these days!

Time for a break…

Until then, I can vicariously enjoy my SiL’s trek along El Camino, and transmission lines too, in Spain.  Go, Jeanne, go!!!

How to work up excitement about the Certificate of Need rulemaking???  On its own, it’s dry, detailed, wonkish stuff, thrilling only to those of us who live and breathe need decisions and utility infrastructure siting and routing… but may there’s some pizazz in the machinations surrounding input, like lack of public representation on the Advisory Committee such that even my tremendous bulk doesn’t even it out.  Does Xcel deserve THREE representatives? ITC two?  “Participating Utilities” two, “Wind Coalition” one and none for Goodhue Wind Truth?  Here’s the list:

Advisory Committee Contact List

Plus they’re not posting the drafts on the rulemaking site, so the public has no idea what’s being proposed:

7849 June 5 DRAFT New

And minutes from the first meeting:

Synopsis – May 29 meeting

To get to the docket, go to www.puc.state.mn.us and then “search eDockets” and search for 12-1246.

We’ll be talking about the Certificate of Need criteria next, and here’s what’s proposed:

7849.0120 CRITERIA CERTIFICATE OF NEED REQUIREMENTS.

   A certificate of need must be granted to the applicant on determining that:

  Subpart 1. Need Demonstration. An applicant for a certificate of need must demonstrate that the demand for electricity cannot be met more cost effectively through energy conservation and load-management measures.

Subpart 2. Renewable Resource Preferred. An applicant proposing an LEGF that uses a nonrenewable energy source must demonstrate that it has considered the use of renewable energy sources, as required under Minnesota Statutes section 216B.243, subd. 3a.

Subpart 3. Assessment of Need Criteria. In evaluating a certificate of need application, the

commission shall consider the criteria contained in Minnesota Statutes, section 216B.243, subd. 3, as well as the following:

     A.  whether the probable result of denial would be an adverse effect upon the future adequacy, reliability, or efficiency of energy supply to the applicant, to the applicant’s customers, or to the people of Minnesota and neighboring states, considering: the region;

                (1)  the accuracy of the applicant’s forecast of demand for the type of energy that would be supplied by the proposed facility;

                  (2) the effects of the applicant’s existing or expected conservation programs and state and federal conservation programs;

      (3)  the effects of promotional practices of the applicant that may have given rise to the

increase in the energy demand, particularly promotional practices which have occurred since 1974;

      (4) B. the ability of current facilities and planned facilities not requiring certificates of need to meet the future demand; and

      (5)  the effect of the proposed facility, or a suitable modification thereof, in making efficient use of resources;

             B C.  whether a more reasonable and prudent alternative to the proposed facility has not been demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence on the record, considering:;

                (1)  D. the appropriateness of the size, the type, and the timing of the proposed facility compared to those of reasonable alternatives;

      (2) E. the cost of the proposed facility and the cost of energy to be supplied by the proposed facility compared to the costs of reasonable alternatives and the cost of energy that would be supplied by reasonable alternatives;

              (3) F. the effects of the proposed facility upon the natural and socioeconomic environments compared to the effects of reasonable alternatives; and

                (4) G.  the expected reliability of the proposed facility compared to the expected reliability of reasonable alternatives;

             C.   by a preponderance of the evidence on the record, the proposed facility, or a suitable modification of the facility, will provide benefits to society in a manner compatible with protecting the natural and socioeconomic environments, including human health, considering:

                (1) the relationship of the proposed facility, or a suitable modification thereof, to overall state energy needs;

      (2) H. the effects of the proposed facility, or a suitable modification thereof, upon the natural and socioeconomic environments compared to the effects of not building the facility;

                (3) I.  the effects of the proposed facility, or a suitable modification thereof, in inducing future development; and

                (4) J. the socially beneficial uses of the output of the proposed facility, or a suitable modification thereof, including its uses to protect or enhance environmental quality; and.

             D.   the record does not demonstrate that the design, construction, or operation of the proposed facility, or a suitable modification of the facility, will fail to comply with relevant policies, rules, and regulations of other state and federal agencies and local governments.

A little over a month ago, ITC Holdings filed a rate request with FERC, and utilities in the Midwest got to it and filed “protests” and petitions to intervene in that docket.  FERC had extended the Comment period until March 6, and oh, did they get comments.  The Who’s Who of utilities, with big emphasis on the Midwest, “our friends” at Xcel represented in a number of capacities…  and even National Wind and Goodhue Wind!

A little birdie dropped off a notice that FERC had issued an Order:

FERC Order – april 10, 2009

I’ve just skimmed it so far, but it looks like they pretty much gave Green Power Express (a/k/a ITC Holdings) the whole enchilada… what they’re asking for is the ability to recover $$$ before the line is even energized, which is absurd, but that’s what all these utiltiies have been asking for and getting, so it’s not really anything new.  Theh difference, it appears, is that ITC is pushing into Xcel’s transmission territory, and Xcel isn’t too happy about it.  The Green Power Express is essentially the Midwest part of JCSP and METP 08, but maybe there’s … ahem… a little confusion about just who was going to build that transmission?!?!?  FERC accepted responses of GPE to Comments, and accepted a response of MISO to comments (in which MISO is siding with GPE), but they rejected all the others, like Xcel, GRE, etc., the ones opposing GPE.  Xcel’s probably not used to getting dissed!

I’m really not sure what to think about this.  The project shouldn’t be built, it’s not needed, that’s for sure, and they shouldn’t get rate recovery, that’s also for sure, but I’ve got to give them a few points for butting in on Xcel’s action.

… and now I’ve finally read the whole thing, and it redefines “Shock and Awe” — this FERC Order gives them 99% of what they asked for, and seemed to bend over in doing so, doing everything they can to give Green Power Express the green light, and to start collecting $$$ right away.  So we’ll be paying for this, and even if it’s not built, we’ll be paying for it.  This transmission binge is reminding me of the nuclear days of the 70s, and we are going to get hit so hard.  What are these yahoos thinking?

What next?  Well, I hope that Illinois and New York will get to it and let FERC and Green Power Experss that “WE DON’T NEED NO STINKIN’ TRANSMISSION!”  New York has been doing a good job thus far giving JCSP the finger, and I hope they continue, because this, logically, will have coal on the wires and will facilitate construction of new coal plants in the Midwest.

Hmmmm… my brain just did a “frolic & detour” — “Coal on the Conductors” just popped in …

Going into the CapX hearing with all this transmission lining up…  (she says, shaking her head in disgust)