It’s fall… and almost time for BaronFest
September 21st, 2015
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!!!
Bill Howley, “The Power Line” blogger, has died
April 26th, 2015
Bill Howley died yesterday.
Bill Howley is known by anyone working in opposition to transmission projects. Due to a transmission line proposed in his community, he learned pretty much everything there is to know about transmission, wrote about it faithfully and fearlessly for years, and became an expert on advocacy, economics and technology of all things electrical. He’s one of the first resources people would turn to when they first learned of transmission projects. Recently, he’d taken the position of Program Director for WV SUN.
Bill Howley’s blog, since 2008 — take a few minutes to get an idea of the depth of his work. Here’s hoping that his family will keep this blog going in perpetuity, a memorial to his work and as a guiding light for all those who are dealing with transmission projects:
The Power Line
The View from Calhoun County
From the Hur Herald from Sunny Cal:
People’s Advocate Bill Howley of Calhoun County has died.
He was a well-known researcher, consultant, consumer advocate, activist, writer, and paralegal.
Rulemaking – Certificate of Need 7849
June 12th, 2013
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:
Plus they’re not posting the drafts on the rulemaking site, so the public has no idea what’s being proposed:
And minutes from the first 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.
What does Obama’s Xmsn push mean?
October 10th, 2011
Aside from unprecedented corporate toadyism? Bowing to corporate greed at public expense? Methinks it means that the feds are stomping on states’ rights, and the states will fiercely fight to preserve their authority. Despite assurances by DOE’s Lauren Azar that they won’t be doing anything they already can’t do, I’m beyond skeptical.
The feds will have one big fight on their hands, a la the fight about states’ rights, whether for consultation on NEITC transmission or their right to deny transmission permits under the NIETC regs:
NIETC designation of corridors tossed out by 9th Circuit Court!!
Denial is NOT withholding… Piedmont v. FERC
Obama’s transmission push is ostensibly based on a Memorandum of Understanding that was signed by federal agencies, note that it is about “federal lands.”
CLICK HERE for the page that claims they’ll “expanding the scope of activity beyond federal lands.” How long before they change that sentence?!?!
For lots of info about this from a more easterly perspective check here:
Here’s what it could mean in practice – a $60 million pay-out to allow the line to go through:
Obama Administration Draws Criticism For Fast-Tracking Transmission Line Project Through National Park Units
Submitted by Kurt Repanshek on October 10, 2011 – 1:41am
A decision by the Obama Administration to fast-track seven power transmission line projects, including one through several units of the National Park System, has drawn condemnation from conservation groups.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar says the fast-tracking shows the administration’s commitment to developing “the kind of critical infrastructure we should be working together to advance in order to create jobs and move our nation toward energy independence.”
But the secretary seems tone-deaf to groups that oppose the transmission project that would run across the Appalachian National Scenic Trail and through the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area and the Middle Delaware National Scenic River.
“The Obama Administration has failed to protect three popular national park sites in New Jersey and Pennsylvania with today’s decision to include the controversial Susquehanna-Roseland power line project on its list of fast-tracked transmission projects,” said Bryan Faehner, the National Parks Conservation Association’s associate director for park uses.
“Susquehanna-Roseland proposes to build massive 200-foot towers and power lines across the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, the Middle Delaware National Scenic River, and the Appalachian National Scenic Trail in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Delaware Water Gap alone enjoys more than five million visitors annually – most of which come from nearby urban areas – seeking the park’s inspiring views and outstanding recreational opportunities,” he added.
“Building massive power lines across these parks will harm the very resources they were designated to protect. This development can only harm visitors’ experience to the parks and puts economic benefits to local communities at risk. Unlike other proposals mentioned on the administration’s list, the Susquehanna-Roseland power line proposal would not help bring renewable energy sources on-line. Instead, it would transmit electricity produced by dirty coal-fired power plants.”
Last month Delaware Water Gap officials announced that a new alternative developed by the applicants has been added to their environmental analysis of the project, alternative 2b. Alternative 2b would be built within the existing right-of-way of the applicants’ original proposal, alternative 2.
“Under alternative 2b, the applicants would not request any additional ROW. They have stated they can safely operate the new line within the existing ROW, which has some sections 100 feet in width,” the NRA officials said at the time. “Construction would still require additional clearing for access roads and other features.”
The administration’s announcement last week to fast-track the project also was criticized by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which said the decision “is a move to bypass proper environmental review designed to protect one of the most scenic areas of the entire national park system.”
“We do not object to fast-tracking projects as long as political appointees follow the laws protecting parks and the environment–but that hasn’t happened here,” said PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch in a press statement. “Using jobs as a pretext is misplaced. More jobs can be created by protecting parks than by trashing them.”
PEER contends that Secretary Salazar, National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis, and other Interior officials have met repeatedly with project proponents, PPL Electric Utilities of Allentown, Pennsylvania and Public Service Electric and Gas Company of Newark, New Jersey, and have already approved a route for a new power line that will cut across the Delaware Water Gap NRA and the Appalachian Trail.
As part of the deal, PEER said the draft EIS will not consider at least two alternatives that would lessen impacts to the park’s scenery but will include at least one alternative (2B) demanded by the companies that is untenable from a safety perspective. The secretary and the director have unofficially committed to the companies that the NPS will select Alternative 2, the alternative preferred by the companies but which is the most damaging to the resources and scenery of the parks, PEER argued. In return, the companies have reportedly agreed to pay $60 million for land acquisition and administration inside and near the NRA.
“This is not ‘fast track,’ it is a short circuit in which political appointees are putting their thumbs on the scale to skew the review process,” Mr. Ruch added. “It is one thing to select an alternative after the conclusion of the NEPA process, but is something else to decide on the alternative before public comment has even begun.”
© Copyright 2011 National Park Advocates, LLC.
Wind up to ELPC Transmission Strategy Meeting
March 28th, 2010
And the pitch? Nothing new, just RE-AMP toadying for utilities, but I’m waiting for Howard “The Slow” Learner to prove me right, again… and to see how far they go to promote transmission.
April 20 & 21st is Learner’s/Environmental Law & Policy Center‘s and RE-AMP’s “invitation only” transmission strategy workshop, at their office in Chicago, and I surmise much about their goal and strategy based on my many past experiences with transmission promoters. This meeting is very unlike the Sierra Club transmission strategy meeting in West Virginia last spring, a great group of people who understand the purpose of transmission, were actively engaged in fighting it and who have been successful in slowing down that big web of 500kV/765kV lines known as Project Mountaineer. Here in the Midwest, it’s a little different. An example:
What is ELPC doing to develop and expand transmission? Transmission lines across South Dakota moving this power out of state means it comes into Minnesota — funny how that works. What is ELPC doing about the coal plants in queue in the Dakotas?
What is the goal of ELPC’s invitation-only Transmission Strategy Meeting?
Anyway, it was no surprise to me — Learner saw I was on the list and has slammed the door in my face! Imagine that! SNORT! It seems that people with a lot of working knowledge of transmission, knowledge of history, and knowledge of the parties involved are not welcome. Specifics on this meeting are below.
Don’t drop the ball, Howard! Will Howard Learner and ELPC be the utilities’ water boy for transmission that’s planned stretching from the Midwest to the East Coast or acknowledge that more big transmission is not needed or wanted? And why would anyone want to advocate for transmission to the East Coast if the East Coast doesn’t want it? Will they respect the East Coast’s solid “NO!” to Midwest transmission? How ethno-geo-centric will they be?
Here are a few posts with links to the primary documents of NYISO & ISO-NE, NY’s Deputy Secretary of Energy, the 10 Mid-Atlantic Governors letter, etc.
DUH… eastern states don’t want our transmission
Offshore transmission, NOT transmission from Midwest
Eastern Governors stand up against Transmission!!!
The windup? Today’s Chicago Tribune has a disturbing article about transmission, foreshadowing the meeting three weeks from now:
For example, from the article:
The estimated cost to move that wind power east could range from $64 billion to $93 billion in 2009 dollars and would require 17,000 to 22,000 miles of transmission lines to be built in the eastern half of the country alone, according to the Eastern Wind Integration and Transmission Study (EWITS) published in January and prepared for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Just a reminder, Matt Schuerger who worked on this EWITS (or “nitwits”) study is the same one who, together with Beth Soholt, asked me and several others to sell out on the SW MN 345kV line. At that time, he was at ME3 (after a stint at District Energy) and is listed as a consultant on Izaak Walton 990s, and Beth Soholt, Izaak Walton League (formerly of MAPP). FYI – Wind on the Wires is a GRANT, not an organization — it’s listed on the Izaak Walton 990s as a “program” despite having a Minnesota non-profit established (CLICK HERE for Secretary of State link). From May, 2001 NWCC minutes:
Matt Schuerger is, in 2022, a 2nd term Commissioner at Minnesota PUC (notice his bio doesn’t mention his working for Waltons, ME3/Fresh Energy, and Wind on the Wires!).
Color me naive, I really didn’t have a clue (other than the enviros’ obscene deal on Prairie Island in 1994) until that meeting in question, it was on or about Sept. 8, 2001, when Beth and Matt asked about 6-7 of us who were likely intervenors in that docket to sell out. “What would you need to approve of this line?” (the SW MN 345kV line, PUC Docket 01-1958). I asked what they were getting and what they’d share, and what they were getting was pissy and they got pissier the more questions I asked, particularly Matt, who made empty threats about walking out — DUH, please, leave! The most important question they didn’t address was, “What about the big long list of coal in queue on p. 29 of the study, waiting for the transmission that they were promoting?” Defensive pissyness, unwillingness to address the big picture, and silence. Schuerger and Soholt, they were so B Squad about it that afternoon at the Loring Cafe, Dinkytown, in 2001. That was the year that “Wind on the Wires” got $4.5 million to promote transmission. That amount was ramped up for the next grant, and the focus of their deal became clear when one agreement was posted on the TRANSLink docket. A o coupfle days later, “Wind on the Wires” got an Energy Foundation/McKnight grant of $8.1 million. $8.1 MILLION! Hmmmmm…
The Energy Foundation/McKnight funded and orchestrated promotion of transmission has been shameless, as bad as the enviro support for coal gasification, their transmission efforts ranging from attempts to gain endorsement of the regional SEED group (organizations that as a whole knew nothing about transmission) to legislative “it’s a deal, a package deal and it’s a good deal” changes desired by utilities, to NWCC “concensus building” to supportive intervention in transmission dockets. That agenda continues despite clear evidence that midwest transmission supports coal, our RES that does not link an increase in renewables with a decrease in coal, MISO policy that has a goal of displacing natural gas with coal (see “Conclusions” in ICF – Midwest ISO Benefits Analysis) , and decreased demand and a conservation mandate, such that transmission is not needed now and probably not needed ever. Whose interests are these organizations acting in? Their interests, their funders’ interests. Where’s consideration of the public interest?
What did they agree to back then? Here’s one example that’s public:
Take a closer look at “Wind on the Wires” that is a subset of the Izaak Walton League. Do members and chapters of the Izaak Walton League have a clue what this organization is advocating? Though there is a Minnesota “non-profit” registered, as above, it remains a “program” on the Izaak Walton League IRS 990s and Beth Soholt is an employee of the Waltons. From the website, here’s the address, same as the Waltons:
Office Location
Wind on the Wires
1619 Dayton Avenue, Suite 203
St Paul, MN 55104
(651) 644-3400
Their list of WOW Staff and Consultants:
Beth Soholt
Director, Wind on the WiresLinda Brewster
Administrative Associate, Wind on the WiresMatthew Schuerger, P.E.
Technical ConsultantNatalie McIntire
Technical/Policy Consultant
And take a look at who is on the board of “Wind on the Wires”, why the whole family is there:
Board Members
R.T. “Hap” Boyd
GE EnergyHans Detweiler
American Wind Energy AssociationJoe DeVito
RES – AmericasTom Feiler
Clipper WindpowerRichard Free
John Deere Wind EnergyBob Gough
Intertribal Council on Utility PolicyIan Krygowski
enXcoHoward Learner
Environmental Law and Policy CenterKevin Lynch
IBERDROLA RENEWABLESMichael Vickerman
RENEW Wisconsin
(And would you look at that, Rick Free?!?! Too funny — I’ve got to tell Nancy Prehn what Rick Free is up to since we killed his Simon Industries gas plant in Waseca!)
And the pitch:
The ELPC Midwest Transmission Strategy Meeting. The shameless Energy Foundation funded (and is this also McKnight Foundation funded?) and orchestrated promotion of transmission continues. First, on March 5th this appeared in my inbox:
Colleagues –
1. We appreciate the Energy Foundation’s grant support to cover reasonable travel/hotel costs for individuals and organizations that may need assistance in order to attend this important regional meeting.
2. Please call/email Kay Tamillow at ELPC (312-795-3709, ktamillow@elpc.org) for information on the favorable hotel rate that ELPC has obtained and to make reservations.
3. Please RSVP to attend if you’re interested and have not yet done so.
Best wishes,
Howard
———————————Midwest/Great Plains Environmental, Clean Energy and Consumer Colleagues,
Please join us for a Midwest Transmission Strategy Meeting on April 20 (dinner) and April 21 (full day), 2010 in Chicagoat the Environmental Law & Policy Center’s conference space, 35 East Wacker Drive. New major interstate transmission lines in the Midwest/Great Plains are a double-edged sword: On the one hand, they can provide additional needed delivery capacity for wind power and other new renewable energy development; on the other hand, they can provide enabling delivery capacity and lifelines of support for the continued operation of old highly-polluting coal plants. We will be developing strategies to advance the former and avoid the latter. We will also address important cost-allocation issues for new transmission. Please RSVP to Kay Tamillow at ktamillow@elpc.org or 312-795-3709. More info to follow on hotel, etc.
The purposes of the strategy meeting are to: (1) Bring together Midwest environmental, clean energy and consumer leaders to learn together and get up-to-speed on key transmission strategy and policy issues, (2) Set the strategic framework for what types of transmission lines we will support and which not, and what we can and should do through advocacy; and (3) Initiate strategic discussions and actions on high-leverage transmission advocacy targets in the Midwest/Great Plains states.
The importance of new transmission capacity to support wind power development is relatively clear. There is a less obvious and equally important goal of relating transmission advocacy to spur the retirement of old, highly-polluting coal plants in the Midwest/Great Plains states. There is a very important set of strategic leverage points because of the structure of the Midwest/Great Plains power market in 2010 – 2020.
The framework for the agenda is as follows below. We will distribute a final agenda closer to the meeting date.
April 20th, 5:30 pm. – 8:30 pm:
Dinner Meeting and Briefing with wind industry and transmission line developers presenting.April 21st, 8:30 am – 4:30 pm:
Morning: Strategy briefing and short course on key transmission issues and opportunities for environmental, clean energy and consumer advocates.Afternoon: Strategy planning and discussion on: (1) Engagement/intervention in key policymaking forums: FERC, MISO, State PUCs, Public Outreach; and (2) Focus on Pros/Cons and potential challenges to particular transmission line proposals in Midwest/Great Plains region.
The agenda planning group includes:
Citizens Utility Board (Illinois) – David Kolata
Energy Foundation – David Wooley and Ben Paulos
Environmental Law & Policy Center – Howard Learner and John Moore
Fresh Energy – Michael Noble
Kresge Foundation – Lois DeBacker
Michigan Environmental Council – James Clift
Wind on the Wires – Beth SoholtPlease RSVP to Kay Tamillow at ktamillow@elpc.org or 312-795-3709. More info to follow on hotel, etc. ELPC is working to obtain foundation support to cover reasonable travel costs for individuals and organizations that may need assistance. Please indicate in your response if you will need reimbursement of reasonable travel costs.
We all understand the strategic importance of this meeting and the issues to be discussed. Thank you in advance for you participation and engagement. Please let me know if you have any questions or suggestions.
Best wishes,
Howard
Howard A. Learner
Executive Director
Environmental Law & Policy Center
35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 1300
Chicago, Illinois 60601
email: HLearner@elpc.org
phone: (312) 673-6500
Please visit ELPC’s website at www.elpc.org
And of course knowing what they’re up to, I signed right up right after I got it, and Alan did too. We’re all set! Then, on the 16th, I get this, from Howard Learner:
Howard Learner wrote:
Carol and Alan,
I’m writing to let you know that the Transmission Strategy Meeting on April 20-21 is a “by invitation only” strategy session among a group of directly invited environmental – clean energy – consumer colleagues, rather than an open conference or seminar event. Members of the planning group for this particular strategy session have asked that we limit attendees to those directly invited. Although my assistant Kay Tamillow did receive your RSVP, we’ll ask that you not plan to attend.
Thank you for understanding,
Howard
Howard A. Learner
Executive Director
Environmental Law & Policy Center
35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 1300
Chicago, Illinois 60601
email: HLearner@elpc.org
phone: (312) 673-6500
Please visit ELPC’s website at www.elpc.org
So here’s my response to Howard’s email:
Howard –
Interesting — I think I understand some things and don’t understand others. I do know that I am thinking that the “plan” is getting more and more interesting…
The Sierra Club had an excellent transmission strategy planning meeting in West Virginia last spring of those intervening in transmission dockets, attorneys, expert witnesses, and advocates from both coasts regarding their focused and effective efforts. I think I shall regard your missive as confirmation that your strategic plan and goal is quite different from that of Sierra.
But many questions remain…
Carol A. Overland
Attorney representing clients in transmission cases across the country for 15 years now
We’ll see how this goes!