7849 Rulemaking update
July 9th, 2013
Updates on rulemaking ongoing at the PUC (not that they put anything in the PUC docket, but don’t worry, I’ll post there too):
Is this too wonkish, or does anyone else see the irony in having to struggle so to get opportunity for public input in these Certificate of Need rules?
If you have comments on the draft rules, and BE SPECIFIC, label with rule citation (i.e., Minn. R. 7849.0100, and show how you’d change the rule, with the narrative explanation and the exact words you suggest, and send to kate.kahlert@state.mn.us and post to docket 12-1246 at the PUC site if you can, (www.puc.state.mn.us and click on “eFiling” and sign up to post if you’re not already registered).
History and background, with links to the comments thus far:
7849 Rulemaking Update – July 4th, 2013
Critical Energy Infrastructure Information NOT! -June 26th, 2013
Rulemaking – Certificate of Need 7849 – June 12th, 2013
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.
Hollydale Project public hearings!
March 7th, 2013
Today the public hearings continue for the Hollydale transmission project.
1:30 p.m. at the Medina Ballroom on Hwy. 55
It’s a 115 kV line proposed for Plymouth and Medina through people’s yards — not a good idea. DUH!
For the full docket, go to the PUC’s Search Docket Page and search for 12-113.
Here’s how they present it in Figure 2 of the Certificate of Need application:
But here’s what it really looks like:
I’m representing a family that lives west of the “Focused Study Area” who just moved to Medina and were surprised by this project — no notice that it was proposed — and are challenging need for the project, and if need is demonstrated, supporting the A-2 distribution system alternative, an upgrade of the 13.8 kV system to 34.5 kV, distributed generation at the load along the area highways, and a combination that would address any demonstrated need:
The parties had a phone conference Monday about Xcel Energy’s request to delay the evidentiary hearings (we aren’t formal parties at this point and weren’t invited, but thanks to “plays well with others” Xcel for the heads up about it):
And the response from Western Plymouth Neighborhood Alliance:
It’s odd delaying a project hearing for a bill that’s speculative, who knows if it might pass or not. But it’s delayed, the evidentiary hearing, that is, until May or June sometime, after the legislative session is over, and details remain to be worked out. I’d guess Xcel Energy has other reasons not to go forward with the evidentiary hearing on need for this line…
Transmission? It’s NOT needed!!!
October 18th, 2012
Yes, once more with feeling… this transmission? It’s NOT needed!
Here’s an article from the St. Cloud Times, good to know they’re following up on the CapX 2020 transmission project and keeping an eye on Xcel Energy. This demonstrates what we’ve been saying for how long now? CapX 2020 is NOT needed:
Record hot summer didn’t mean record electricity useage, Xcel Energy reports
In fact, electricity use actually fell in the scorching summer of 2012.
Xcel’s 2Q reports – sand mining increases sales
August 14th, 2012
Xcel Energy’s 2Q report came out almost two weeks ago (where DOES the time go?!?!), and one part stuck out:
This came from their transcript, on Seeking Alpha, linked above. So who is looking at the impacts of frac sand mining on energy use, sales and peak demand?
The earnings call and other info is available on Xcel’s Investor site at www.xcelenergy.com. CLICK HERE FOR THEIR INVESTOR RELATIONS PAGE (may need to agree to their “Safe Harbor Statement” to get here) Xcel’s demand isn’t anything to write home about, this from their 8/2/2012 Xcel Energy Second Quarter 2012 Earnings Report:
And from the SEC:
And in this filing, an amazing tidbit that I’d not noticed before — Firm Transmission Rights are regarded as COMMODITY DERIVATIVES:
< ![endif]–>
“Financial Transmission Rights” which “entitle the holder to one year of monthly revenues or charges based on transmission congestion across a given transmission path.” SAY WHAT?!?!?!
Now please, correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t “derivatives” in a tanking market what got Xcel’s NRG into bankruptcy?