Legalectric

It’s a different kind of “Wild West” in transmission these days (the photo up above could well be the old 230 kV line through PA and New Jersey!).   But it gets pretty exciting reading through these applications and seeing what it is that these evil transmission promoters are doing.

I did send out a lot of Information Requests today on the ITC Midwest MN/IA transmission project:

IR 1 to ITC (sent a while ago, responses received)

ITCM Response to CETF-NoCapX2020 IR No. 1

IR 2 to ITCMidwest

IR3 to ITCMidwest

IR 4 to ITCMidwest

IR 5 to ITCMidwest

IR 6 to ITCMidwest

IR 7 to ITCMidwest

IR 8 to ITCMidwest

IR 9 to ITCMidwest

IR 10 to ITCMidwest

What I’m most concerned about is that they’re touting all these benefits resulting from this project, but the benefits are associated with not just this project, but the REST of MVP 3, which is this project PLUS the MidAmerican part of MVP 3 in Iowa, PLUS MVP 4 (heading eastward to the Mississippi, and MVP 5, which is heading up to the Madison 345 kV ring, not just the part connecting the MVP 3 and MVP 5, but also Badger Coulee connecting CapX from La Crosse to Madison.  IT’S ALL CONNECTED, and the benefits, as modeled by PROMOD, are economic benefits, where a fundamental assumption of the modeling which includes ALL of the MVP projects, and not just MVP 3, MVP 4 and MVP 5, but all 17 of them.  17.  OK, find, we’re including all those benefits…

… but what about costs?  Wellllllllllllll…

They’re only addressing costs for their teeny-tiny portion of MVP 3, about 1/2 of it in Minnesota and a little bit into Iowa, the red part on this map, and no other costs:

The cost/benefit analysis of this project is a little unbalanced:

And it should come as no surprise that their lead witness, ITC Midwest’s David Grover, was behind the TRANSLink docket (oh my… for that docket, go to the PUC search page, and search for docket 02-2152 (NSP) and/or 02-2119 (IP&L) where both utilities were asking the PUC for permission to transfer transmission assets to TRANSLink, what was to be the first transmission only company in Minnesota.   It wasn’t exactly going well, and so they bought out the enviros who had intervened:

Settlement Agreement – ME3(Fresh Energy), Izaak Walton League, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, North American Water Office

Things went south in transmission from there, because even though the TRANSLink Petition was withdrawn, the utilities just did it another way, and got everything they wanted,  including legislation authorizing transmission only companies:

2005 Ch 97 – Transmission Omnibus Bill from Hell — Xcel’s transmission perks and C-BED

… plus perks like construction work in progress (CWIP) rate recovery, broadened definition of “need,” on and on, a transmission company or utility’s dream.

It’s all connected…

What’s new?  Well, Xcel Energy has announced its 3Q results and the 2013 demand just keeps going down!

From Seeking Alpha, the 3Q call transcript (emphasis added):

Kit Konolige – BGC Partners, Inc., Research Division

On the — your sales growth outlook, I believe you said that you are expecting 0% to 0.5% in 2013. Can you discuss the breakdown by states on that and maybe any color about commercial versus industrial versus residential? And also give us a view of the longer term sales outlook that you’re seeing at this point?

Teresa S. Madden – Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President

Well, sure, Kit. Let’s start with the 2013 by the states. Minnesota, we’re still projecting a decline of about 1.2%. In NSP-Wisconsin, just a slight decline. And then the other 2 jurisdiction, PSCo slightly up and SPS at about 1.2% range. But all of it netting to within the — up to 0.5%. When we look to the future, we’re looking at about, as we indicated in our guidance up to 0.5%, those are narrowing, not such a great degree in terms of the decline in NSP-Minnesota. In terms of the various classes of customers, it does vary by jurisdiction. I will say that C&I, we see the most growth in Texas with the oil and gas industry boom.

CLICK HERE FOR FULL TRANSCRIPT.

Let me repeat that tidbit:

Minnesota, we’re still projecting a decline of about 1.2%. In NSP-Wisconsin, just a slight decline.

And as we know too well, the CapX 2020 transmission project taking over Minnesota is based on their wishful-thinking projections of a 2.49% annual increase.

From Xcel Energy’s own investor page (click to enlarge):

Here’s the full 10-Q (above from p. 50):

XCEL 9.30.13 10-Q

Someone remind me — why are we paying to build this CapX 2020 transmission project?

Comments were due today on Minnesota Power’s request for Exemptions from the rules governing content of Applications for a Certificate of Need for a transmission line.

Look at the red on that map — potentially affected areas where MP is looking to put a transmission line.  WOOOOO-EEEE, that’s a lot of land!

Minnesota Power’s proposed Great Northern Transmission Line is inching along in the Certificate of Need process.  Here’s Minnesota Power’s site:

Great Northern Transmission Line page

And to look at the full docket, go to www.puc.state.mn.us, click on “Search eDockets” and search for 12-1163.  The application is expected sometime in March or so, but I’d guess it will be later.

Here’s how they plan to let people know about the project — it was filed a while ago, Comments were due, and I tried and tried to get people to comment, oh well, here’s what was filed about the Notice Plan filed in October and the Comments filed in November:

MP Great Northern Transmission Line Notice Plan

Commerce Comments on MP’s GNTL Notice Plan

Overland Notice Plan Comments

That’s sitting at the PUC now.  So where are we?  Just starting out…  Here’s a diagram of the hoops for the PUC process, edited a bit by yours truly for handouts at the meetings a couple months ago, we’re at the very first box in the chart:

Today, comments were due on the Minnesota Power request for Exemptions from some specific rules, Reply Comments, that is.  Here’s what’s been filed:

Minnesota Power Exemption Request

Commerce Comments – Exemptions Request

MP Exemptions Reply Comments

Overland-Legalectric Reply Comments

Today Comments were due on Minnesota Power’s Great Northern Transmission Line.  I’m sorry, but I just can’t bring myself to call a transmission line “Great” and that’s just how it is…  Anyway, Minnesota Power is getting ready to file a Certificate of Need application, this is the lead up, what they have to do to provide notice to people when they actually file.  So here’s their draft plan:

Minnesota Power’s Notice Plan for Great Northern Transmission Line

Comments on that plan were due today.  Here’s what I filed:

Overland’s Notice Plan Comments, November 19, 2012

Here’s what Commerce filed earlier today:

MOES Comment – GNTL Notice Plan

Haven’t gotten word on any others.

To keep an eye on what’s going on in this docket, go HERE and search for docket 12-1163.

A little sidebar here — while looking for a logo, some things popped out — did you know that Minnesota Power sponsors, with the Lignite Energy Council, a “Teachers Seminar” on coal?  It’s the only teacher workshop listed, though there are multiple listings under “School Programs” and “Educational Materials.”

Lignite Education Seminar

OH MY!  Check their “Electricity 101” pdf:

Electricity 101

p. 7:

1929—Stock market crash revealed that many holding companies were over-leveraged

–As a result, federal and state governments strengthened utility regulation.

There are some interesting charts and graphs in Electricity 101 that are interesting and that I’d like to see updated.  Hear that, MP!?!?!

… first it’s Alan’s Birthday, now officially an old fart and then some.  And then it’s Valentine’s Day, and he just gave me the bestest gift of all:

… a succinct analysis of WI Public Service Commission staff Neumeyer’s testimony!!!

AWWWWWWWWW, what a guy, it’s just what I wanted!!!