PPSA Annual Hearing in EQB Monitor
November 3rd, 2022
BE THERE OR BE SQUARE!
9:30 a.m. Wednesday November 9, 2022
3rd Floor Large Meeting Room
Public Utilities Commission
121 – 7th Place East, St. Paul
Mesaba Project at the PUC on August 14th
August 5th, 2012
Excelsior Energy’s Mesaba Project, the coal gasification plant that will not die, is returning to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission on August 14, 2012.
At that time, they’ll address whether the original project’s permits apply to this project, and whether this one, under Minn. Stat. 216B. 1694, requires additional environmental review:
**6. E6472/GS-06-668 Excelsior Energy, Inc.
In the Matter of the Joint LEPGP Site Permit, HVTL Route Permit and Pipeline (Partial
Exemption) Route Permit Application for the Mesaba Energy Project in Itasca County.
Should the Commission find, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 216B. 1694 subdivision 3, that the
site and route permits issued on March 12, 2010 for the Mesaba Energy Project are deemed valid
for a natural gas fired plant located at the same site and that no additional environmental review
is required under applicable state rules?
This docket has been one of the longest strangest trips ever, a coal gasification plant that wasn’t needed yet fed by state and federal money, using CO2 capture and storage that does not, can not, and will not exist. Here’s some history:
Health Benefits of Coal (ya gotta read this one, HILARIOUS!)
Mesaba – Extend the Hearing! (the hearing was a farce)
And why are we here on the 14th? The PUC granted a Site Permit to the project f/k/a Mesaba Project, the coal gasification plant:
Then it starts getting complicated, Excelsior sends PUC letter saying it wants confirmation that the permits issued for the Mesaba Project coal gasification plant are valid for a natural gas plant, and that it would require no further environmental review:
And then Excelsior chimes again disclosing not much of anything about their “plan” for this gas plant:
And then the Comment period is extended and we get another bite:
And now we’re off to the races…
In the Duluth News Tribune:
CRVC’s hearing on Development Agreement suit
October 7th, 2010
(really, that’s their “site plan” — how informative!!)
It’s in the news, Concerned River Valley Citizens’ suit against LS Power, Lent Township and Chisago County had a hearing last week. Short version:
Judge Hoffman said he wanted to be armed with sufficient information to make a decision. He asked for just one thing – a written transcript of the legislative discussion that preceded the adoption of the legislation regarding the tax exemption in 2009, specifically subdivision 92 pertaining to the obtaining of the development agreement.
He asked the attorneys to write a letter to the court when it is provided and then he will make his decision.
The judge believed this information is important and he can’t be obligated to make a decision until he knows what the legislation said about approval of a development agreement “before” the start of construction.
Most committee meetings now are available online, and the legislative library provides tapes. One problem is that the legislative intent is rarely conveyed in the committee meetings, and all the behind the scenes doings aren’t going to see the light of day.
The statutory section at issue – Minn. Stat. 272.02, Subd. 92.
Here’s the Summons and Complaint from last June:
For more info, go to www.stopsunriseriverplant.com
From ECM Post Review:
Judge asks for one thing in power plant civil case
500+ give LS Power a piece of their mind
October 20th, 2009
XCEL DOESN’T NEED OR WANT MORE ELECTRICITY, XCEL DOESN’T WANT A POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH LS POWER, SUNRISE ENERGY, OR WHOEVER…
That was the most important thing to come out of last night’s meeting. Mikey Bull was clear, stating in a most Norwegian way that “despite what Carol thinks, our load is growing,” and that they “won’t have a need… until 2016 or 2017.” I hope that people LISTENED CAREFULLY and were thinking critically.
Shellene Johnson, CRVC, walked Bob Cupit through the siting review and permitting options:
Bob was thrilled, I’m sure, he thought I’d put her up to it, but hey, I’m innocent — this is info that needs to be public, so that people understand all the options. Shellene had questions, particularly where this was an issue that had come up way back when we worked on the County Essential Services ordinance, and wanted to beef up the county’s ordinance to give them some options if a project went through local review. Local review is NOT a new issue for Chisago County, and if you recall, the SE Metro line went through the local review process.
Alan Muller was his usual delightful self, leading Blake Wheatley through a list of questions that demonstrated the “vaporware” nature of this project — he couldn’t or wouldn’t give us any information at all about the project. He knew NOTINK!
What would be the output of this plant? Answer:
780 MW summer rating. Over 800 winter rating. [Gas turbines
make more power when the air is colder and more dense.]How many generating units would there
be?
Answer: Don’t
know/haven’t decided.Who would be the manufacturer of the combustion
turbines? Answer:
Don’t know/haven’t decided.Who would be the manufacturer of the steam
turbines? Answer: Don’t
know/haven’t decided.How many smokestacks would the plant have?
Answer: Don’t know/haven’t
decided.How gallons or barrels of oil would be stored on the
site:
Answer: Don’t know/haven’t decided.How much oil would be burned in a
year?
Answer: Don’t
know/haven’t decided.In your air permit application, how many pounds per year of regulated air
pollutants would you be asking permission to put up your
smokestacks? Answer: Don’t know/haven’t
decided.And so on …..
…he knew nothing at all about this, and that’s because there’s nothing to know. There’s no project plan, no Power Purchase Agreement, no state permit applications, nada… This isn’t a project, it’s a farce… Tom Micheletti could take lessons from Blake Wheatley. Here’s the site plan, from the Oct 15 2009 Revised Draft Development Agreement:
WOW, that says a lot…
Take the time to read these:
Oct 15 2009 Revised Draft Development Agreement
I promised to post a few things so people can learn about prior proposals to get an idea what this one means, so let’s do that. Bear with me, this is interesting stuff!
This MISO Interconnection study says that for 660MW of generation at the Chisago sub, lots of transmission would need to be added. Here’s what one of the two similar options looks like (it’s better in print than here, looks hard to read):
Next is an answer to “what exactly are they proposing” with a couple of prior applications for gas plants as examples of what to expect, what to look for:
Faribault Energy Park – Application
These two applications are important to see what gas plants are all about. For example, the Faribault Energy Park is a 250MW plant, and here are some fun facts from the application:
A 250MW plant is 68 dB(A) 400 feet from the plant… what will a plant three+ times that be?
Here’s what that plant looks like – REMEMBER 750MW IS THREE TIMES THE SIZE OF A 250MW PLANT AND 855MW IS NEARLY FOUR TIMES AS LARGE:
Here’s a closer side view:
Here’s an emissions chart, and remember, the LS Power proposal is 3+ times this, so expect over three times the emissions:
And here’s a fun fact, from the 2004 Blue Lake application, showing their projected “need” back in 2004 that’s WAY overestimated:
From Xcel’s 2008 10-k, p. 10:
Capacity and Demand
Uninterrupted system peak demand for the NSP System’s electric utility for each of the last three years and the forecast for 2009, assuming normal weather, is listed below.System Peak Demand (in MW)
2006 2007 2008 2009 Forecast
9,859 9,427 8,697 9,662The peak demand for the NSP System typically occurs in the summer. The 2008 system peak demand for the NSP System occurred on July 29, 2008.
And now we know that instead of inexplicably going up in 2009, it’s going down. DOWN, further down. But note that in their 2008 10-k, Xcel admits that system peak was 8.697, lower than 2004. That pushes out any need until when? And the longer this drop continues, the further out and less probably any increased need is! And remember, Blue Lake was added to address the 11,000MW need claimed in the application. To get beyond that, how long will it take? With conservation, probably forever, we’ll never need more!
So, folks, as you can see, this isn’t rocket science, and they have no plan, no Power Purchase Agreement, it isn’t needed, it isn’t wanted. LS Power, go away.
LS Power’s Sunrise River mega gas plant
June 26th, 2009
LS Power is proposing to put a massive 800+ MW gas peaking plant in Chisago County, right by the Chisago County substation. This isn’t news for regular Legalectric readers, but the community is just starting to wake up.
This plant was the subject of a utility personal property tax exemption bill introduced by area legislators, Rep. Jeremy Kalin and Sen. Rick Olseen, and they introduced it without notifying local governments that they were pulling out a lot of much needed funding by exempting the plant from taxes (if local residents have to pay taxes, shouldn’t they? How is LS Power special?). THIS SAYS THE GOVERNOR VETOED IT.
When it came up at the county, and a Commissioner wanted to send a thank you to Kalin and Olseen, things got a little hot:
That’s encouraging, not everyone is toadying…
There have been meetings this week about the LS Power proposal, one on Monday for “stakeholders” it seems, and another on Tuesday for the public. The one on Monday, well, we need more information… like, who’s a “stakeholder,” and who decides?
As for Tuesday, here’s a link:
And will you look at who was there?!?!?!
And I hear they’ll be holding another next Monday, so you should go if you’re interested:
Where?
When?
I’m struck by how the statutory reference on the “Friends” site is only to Chapter 216E, the siting and routing process, and worse, it focuses on the the shortened “Ram it Through” alternate review... if they’ve got that up their sleeves, they’ll need a whack upside da head on that one. And if it’s shortened review, they have the option of “local review.” Is that the plan? FOR AN 855MW PLANT??? GUESS AGAIN, CUPCAKE!!!
And so, welcome to the Certificate of Need concept.
It seems to me that they had at least one similar meeting over a year ago, in April, 2008, looking at a snippet from Larry Baker’s page — who was regarded as a “stakeholder” then??
LS Power’s proposal is moving along in the MISO queue:
As you can see from the G975 chart in the study above, G975 has a few problems:
Here’s an earlier report from one of the three prior MISO queue’d projects for this location:
… and what’s interesting about is, first, they eliminated a reconductoring option because it was deemed too costly, not feasible, and here are the other options, starting with Option 2, p. 7 in the study above:
See that big honkin’ 345kV line that would have to be built?!?!
And for Option 3, p. 8:
More transmission lines to be built…
Either way you look at it, we’re talking lots of big transmission in Chisago land.
Whatever are they thinking?