SPP Planning: It’s as if Clean Lines don’t exist!
July 28th, 2015
As if they don’t exist? Yes, and that’s because they don’t. That’s because they’re transmission projects in their own minds, and not in reality.
What? SPP, the Southwest Power Pool, dissing Clean Line? See for yourself! It’s as simple as doing a simple search of the SPP planning reports.
We know, Clean Line is all about Clean Line, but there’s a significant disconnect between what Clean Line is saying about SPP, claiming “approval” of its projects and incorporation of those projects into SPP’s plans, and the reality of what shows up in those plans. Or more correctly, what DOESN’T show up in those plans:
CLEAN LINE IS ABSENT!
PLAINS & EASTERN CLEAN LINE IS ABSENT!
GRAIN BELT EXPRESS CLEAN LINE IS ABSENT!
Whadda ya mean? Well, on November 19, 2012, Plains & Eastern Clean Line sent out this press release:
SPP Transmission Working Group approves Plains & Eastern Clean Line reliability studies
This press release was EVERYWHERE, with Clean Line jubilant, jumping up and down, so excited and so elated, and stated that:
The Southwest Power Pool’s (SPP) Transmission Working Group today unanimously passed a motion accepting that the Plains & Eastern Clean Line reliability studies completed to date have met the coordinated planning requirements.
And went on to say (emphasis added) that:
Clean Line is also pleased to announce that it recently submitted the Plains & Eastern Clean Line and Grain Belt Express Clean Line projects, both +/- 600 kV high voltage direct current transmission projects capable of transmitting 3,500 MW from the SPP footprint to external-to-SPP sinks, in each of the ITP20 Futures 1 through 4. The objective of ITP20 is to develop an EHV backbone (345 kV and above) transmission plan for a 20-year horizon. The assessment will identify a robust transmission plan that is capable of reliably and economically providing deliverability of energy to the SPP market while enabling policy initiatives. The current ITP20 process is the second Integrated Transmission Planning Year 20 Assessment (ITP20). The assessment is conducted in accordance with the SPP Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) Attachment O, and the approved ITP Manual. The assessment begins in January 2012 and is scheduled to be finalized in July 2013.
Here’s that 2013 ITP 20:
2013 ITP20 Report – Southwest Power Pool
Now check out the map of their ITP20 projects in this report — do you see either the Plains & Eastern or Grain Belt mentioned above on this map:
Nope, neither do I. I did a search of the narrative, and “Clean Line” isn’t even mentioned once!
And there are no ITP20s after that 2013 one above, either HERE on the ITP Assessments page or HERE on the ITP20 Documents page!
Oh, OK, so what about the SPP Planning and SPP’s STEP (not unlike the MTEP and RTEP!):
2015_STEP_Report
Do a search — nada… so I tried a search on “transmission” and blew up the computer. So the search function works and in this report also, there’s no mention of Clean Line whatsoever, be it Plains & Eastern Clean Line or Grain Belt Clean Line or just plain ol’ Clean Line.
And there’s nothing here either:
It’s only in the 2015 ITP10 SCOPE that there’s any mention of “Clean Line” and it’s only the Plains & Eastern Clean Line, not both, AND it’s only for sensitivity analysis. This is not being included as a project, contemplated or promoted.
And in the resulting 2015 ITP10? A mention in the list of sensitivities, and then three mentions on p. 103:
And in the SPP 2015 Final Near Term Assessment, not a mention:
When it comes to the scope of their next ITP10, Clean Line disappears, not even one mention, nada, again, not even an honorable mention as a “sensitivity” in the scope:
Meanwhile, Illinois is holding “public hearings” that are very limited for what a large project this is, and very odd, considering that there are pending Motions for Reconsideration in this docket (Grain Belt Express Docket #15-0277 online at ICC’s e-docket system at www.icc.illinois.gov).
Public hearings tonight and tomorrow in Illinois:
I’d hope that Illinois, Missouri, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Tennessee pay attention to this lack of incorporation of any Clean Line project into SPP Planning!
Oh, and of course, the DOE should be paying attention! Hey Office of Electric Deliverability and Energy Reliability, are you paying attention?
Overland’s Plains & Eastern DEIS Comments
April 20th, 2015
Quick comments — this project is bizarre, a private project proposed on request of DOE (with applicant ringleader a former DOE employee) that has no demonstrable need. ???
Here’s the link for the DEIS, from their site:
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Plains & Eastern Clean Line Transmission Project (DOE/EIS–0486; Draft EIS) is now available
I do hope the DOE will explain how they intend to review this under Section 1222… it’s all too bizarre for words!
From NISLAPP – Green Electricity or Green Money?
November 4th, 2014
Released yesterday by National Institute for Science, Law, and Public Policy (NISLAPP) (never heard of it before, need to do some checking):
Green Electricity or Green Money?
Why is this a question? We know it’s a problem. But this report focuses on things like “Smart Meters” and doesn’t dig into the the even worse toadying for coal gasification and other harebrained promotional schemes of these orgs.
Here in Minnesota, the money goes to Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, Fresh Energy f/k/a ME3, Izaak Walton League and its former program now independent 501(c)(3) Wind on the Wires (conveniently separate since just after election, when Bill Grant was appointed Deputy Commissioner of Commerce in charge of all things energy)(oh, and Nancy Lange appointed to Public Utilities Commission). And then there’s RE-AMP. There’s so much money flying around for promotion of transmission and coal gasification.
Bill Clinton toadying for transmission
WOW’s devil we know… ummm… WOW!!!
Walton’s Bill Grant – Deputy Commissioner of Energy?
Wind up to ELPC Transmission Strategy Meeting
AAAAAAAAAAAAARGH… back to work…
One transmission line easement settled!
October 14th, 2014
One small step… and a giant leap! A transmission easement settled, and at more than twice the original offer. Yeah, we can live with that.
The troubling thing is that the appraisal didn’t really make sense, and they way they came to the appraisal amount didn’t add up. But despite that, the bottom line was good, so we’re not going to quibble.
Onward, heading up north for transmission hearings for the Not-so-Great Northern Transmission Line.
Xcel demand down, down, down
September 28th, 2014
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:
Here’s the short version from Xcel:
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?
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):
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?
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
Transmission? It’s NOT needed!!!
October 18th, 2012
Xcel shelves projects, admitting demand is down
December 3rd, 2011