“Lucky Star,” transmission on BLM land
December 27th, 2024
Recent alert came over the wire about a transmission project on BLM land, this one in Wyoming, and yes, that map is fuzzy, no details, and it’s direct from the application on the BLM site, awful!
Here’s the BLM page for the project — a rather short line in the cosmic realm of things — and there’s little info to go on. There’s a 15-day public scoping period prior to preparing an environmental assessment (EA), and comments are open until 4 p.m. on January 7, 2025:
BLM Lucky Star Transmission Page
Per the press release:
And there are these emails listed on their page, I’d send to these plus snail mail (this is 2024/2025 — comments by snail mail?):
It’s a pretty small project, 24.8 miles:
And the full application, PRELIMINARY application:
And as usual, the maps suck. How can one effectively submit a scoping comment “prior to preparing an environmental assessment (EA)” when there’s this timeline that shows the “Draft EA done 1/6/2024, and the EA was STARTED five days after it was DONE. From TIMELINE PAGE:
And they acknowledge the error and fixed it!!!
GOOD!
Transmission corridors on BLM land
December 26th, 2024
Recent alert came over the wire about a transmission project on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land, this one in Wyoming, and it’s to be built “mostly” on BLM transmission corridors. WHAT? Yup, here’s the main page. BLM transmission corridors And yeah, it’s grim. That map above shows how grim it is.
So before I get into Lucky Star Transmission, we need to get familiar with the BLM set up… and there’s a LOT. It’s originating with the “Energy Policy Act of 2005” There’s so much info that the BLM Lucky Star Transmission Project will be the next post. Lots of ground to cover — and they’re sure working on covering it with transmission. Ya wonder why challenging transmission projects feels hopeless, other than minor route changes…
Did you know the feds designated the “West-Wide Energy Corridor, a BLM-designated energy-transmission corridor,” over a decade ago? This is another aspect of the “Energy Policy Act of 2005.”
That Energy Policy Act of 2005 is the law that triggered the coal gasification rush that thankfully was brought to a halt, particularly thanks to everyone of “No New Coal Plants,” challenging every one of them, and helping establish that coal gasification was nothing more than “Pipedreams of Green and Clean,” and that claims of feasible carbon capture and storage was not happening on a level to be even close to a CO2 climate change miracle.
As for CO2… CO2 capture and storage is a recurring nightmare, a red herring that keeps coming back.
It’s so disturbing to see the same ol’ thing coming around, after the intense challenge to the Excelsior Energy Mesaba Project, where Xcel Energy, of course, and our local advocates mncoalgasplant.com(pre 2012 captures) and Citizens Against the Mesaba Project (CAMP)(pre 2012 captures) worked together to tank Micheletti’s boondoggle. At the last minute, Excelsior Energy camp up with a CO2 capture and storage plan, where it would capture a minute percentage of CO2 and then transfer it to the PLANT GATE!Their plan? Read it and guffaw, snort, hoot and holler: Ex_EE1067_Plan for Carbon Capture and Sequestration
From nearly 20 years ago, that was a nightmare I don’t really want to remember: Pipedreams-of-Green-Clean-IGCC The Excelsior Energy Mesaba Project was an all encompassing HUGE project for me and all of us challenging coal gasification, time wise, technically, and the sheer room for all the boxes of crap taking up an entire wall in my office… and OH MY DOG, I missed a lot that grew from that Energy Policy Act of 2005.
The current push for CO2 capture, pipelines, and storage a la Summit Carbon Solutions, is another pipedream/nightmare, proof that “we” don’t learn anything. The Iowa parts of Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline project was APPROVED (!) by the Iowa Utilities Board f/k/a Board of Public Utilities last summer, and the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission recently approved a very short part of Summit’s pipeline, I’d guess a Summit trial balloon for Minnesota, as a much larger pipeline project is proposed for southern Minnesota. Sooooo… we’re off to the races.
And that brings us to the transmission part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors we know about. The original three are now joined by others, also receiving a big push right now by the Biden Administration adding some additional corridors, and dropping others proposed.
But these BLM “energy corridors” are a whole ‘nother kettle of fish. When first established, they were challenged, with Plaintiffs arguing it wasn’t enough, hence a “Settlement Agreement.” Y’all know what I think of “Settlement Agreements” and this one seems no exception — look at all the groups blessing this BLM facilitation of another massive transmission buildout:
Here’s the BLM’s “Regional Report” with links to the documents:
Regional Review Final Report
And the map of the corridors:
Here’s their guidance for siting transmission in these corridors:
Interim Directive 2726.43k – Use of 368 Corridors in Siting Energy Projects
And here’s their study, which supposedly evaluates whether the Section 368 corridors are achieving their
purpose to promote environmentally responsible corridor-siting decisions and to reduce the proliferation of dispersed ROWs crossing Federal lands.
From this, the “priority corridors” map:
Ain’t this just delightful??
On to the Lucky Star Transmission Project
Getting railroaded?
February 2nd, 2010
We all know what a pain in the patoot siting transmission is (particularly when it’s not needed). And now for something completely different — an interesting and seemingly probable theory:
ARE Y’ALL PAYIN’ ATTENTION??!!!?!?!?!
This is one of those pieces that I want to preserve to take out and reread in the not too distant future:
Buffett’s Semaphore Signal: Should Burlington Northern Shareholders Think Again Before Saying ‘Yes’ To Berkshire Hathaway?
Author: Daniel Sinclair
Reasons commentators ascribe to Buffett’s offer to acquire one of North America’s largestrail networks, Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) are now familiar. Growing global trade, continued reliance on (especially low sulphur) coal, a resurgent and growing US economy (without needing to pick product ‘winners’ and ‘losers’), a low risk way to gain exposure to any rising process for commodities, a hedge against inflation given rail’s pricing power, a competitive advantage in rail’s oligopoly and high barriers to entry, more productive rail with more efficient and technologically advanced operations and a rise double-decker railway carriages, a way to play higher oil prices and cap and trade or carbon tax laws given that rail is 3 to 4 times more fuel efficient than trucks.
Those reasons are all good, and they have been part of the core investment thesis for rail. But, it is submitted, there may be something extra that offers compelling upside to rail that has Buffett excited. Think about all the land that rail owns. BNSF, for example, operates one of the largest railroad networks in North America with about 32,000 route miles of track plus an additional 23,000 miles for other rail related infrastructure and property. Much of this land is of relatively little value beyond the use of rail. No one is going to build condos or hotels or new subdivisions along side railways.
Now think again. You think Boone Pickens has an ambitious plan for wind farms? Wait until you see what Buffett could do right across the US with his investment in BNSF. This land might become prime property for alternative energy generation including from wind and solar farms either side of rail tracks. With much of rail land in the middle of nowhere, there are few worries about the ‘not-in-my-back-yard’ crowd and more difficult regulatory approvals. Small wind mills and solar panels might be placed on the trains themselves to generate energy.