Carol Overland - Legalectric
78 MW of Solar PV in New Jersey?
This is a map of the footprint of the 78MW Stella Solar and Atlantic Green Power project proposed for Upper Pittsgrove, New Jersey. I’ve ehard there are others planned nearby, but that this is the biggest.
Project description from Atlantic Green Power Holding Company 3Q 10-Q filing:
There are two meetings coming up about this project:
Informational Meeting
Elmer Grange Hall
Tuesday, March 16, 2010 from 6 to 8:30 p.m.
and the Land Use meeting where the town will approve or deny the application:
Upper Pittsgrove Town Hall
Thursday, March 18, 2010 at 7:30 p.m.
Now you all know how I love solar, from the solar hot water my father designed for the Minnesota Zoo to those simple little heaters you can make or buy:
Northern Tool sells simple solar air heaters
Every house needs these simple solar heaters.
Solar PV should also be on the roof of every big box there is, and on every home. But to be clear, I don’t think it belongs covering prime ag fields a long way from load. That isn’t “highest and best use,” and just doesn’t make sense when you consider the capacity factor of solar and the line loss over transmission. So, this project seems odd…
Why do it? Well, look who is involved and the incentives — means, motive and opportunity — and given that, I hope the town will take a close look before jumping, at the very least, require these conditions (off the top of my head):
- No ag land be removed from production; and
- No ag land be removed from ag preservation designation; and
- Commercial solar be limited to commercial and industrial areas; and
- Commercial solar be limited to roofs in rural areas.
WHO IS GOING TO BUY THIS POWER?
LET’S SEE THE POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT!
The article way below, from Today’s Sunbeam, says it is to be built on land that “is currently owned by Ed Stella and will be leased to Atlantic Green Power…” but the Atlantic Green Power site says that Edward Stella, Jr., is the “Vice President of Project Development.” From what I can see, this is their FIRST project. Edward Stella as VP? Really, it’s right here, so we’re not exactly talking about an arms length transaction:
Edward Stella, Jr.
Vice President of Project Development, Director
If he’s connected to “such customers as Scott’s, Coastal Supply, Home Depot and Lowes” why aren’t they putting solar on the roofs of those big boxes, where it can be used, and not on prime ag land far away from big boxes?
Atlantic Green Power Holding Company has been in existence since September 17, 2009, and Edward Stella, Jr., has been “Vice President of Project Development” and a “Director” for all of a month.
A press released based blurb provides two sources for more information:
Robert Demos, Jr., President & CEO of Atlantic Green Power Holding Company
and
Howard Greene, Greene Inc., and CLICK HERE FOR GREENEINCPR.COM — HA!!
So now, let’s look at Lodestar Mining… from their site, their ONLY press release listed posts these links for Atlantic Green Power and Lodestar. CLICK ON THESE LINKS THAT THEY PROVIDED:
So keep digging - here are their SEC filings
LGST - their own link says “There are no All Market results”
Hmmmmmmmmmmm…
CLICK HERE for Lodestar’s 10-Q for the year ending June 30, 2008, with this statement:
Lodestar’s financial statements have been prepared on a going concern basis, which contemplates the realization of assets and settlement of liabilities and commitments in the normal course of business for the foreseeable future. Since inception, the Company has accumulated losses aggregating to $31,301 and has insufficient working capital to meet operating needs for the next twelve months as of June 30, 2008, all of which raise substantial doubt about Lodestar’s ability to continue as a going concern.CLICK HERE FOR LATE FILED 2008 10-K.
From their 10-K regarding their one option contract:
As of March 13, 2009, the second option payment of $75,000 had not been made. Accordingly, Lodestar executed an extension agreement dated March 12, 2009 with Claim Lake Nickel wherein Claim Lake agreed to extend the term for the second payment to March 13, 2010.Claim Lake intends to continue to develop its property through additional surface exploration comprising geological mapping, lithogeochemistry and soil geochemistry and diamond drilling. This activity is dependent on being able to raise additional funding.
If we are unable to complete any phase of exploration because we don’t have enough money, we will cease operations until we raise more money. If we can’t or don’t raise more money, we will cease operations. We do not intend to hire additional employees at this time. All of the work on the property will be conducted by unaffiliated independent contractors that we will hire. The independent contractors will be responsible for surveying, geology, engineering, exploration, and excavation. The geologists will evaluate the information derived from the exploration and excavation and the engineers will advise us on the economic feasibility of removing the mineralized material.
And this snippet:
Liquidity and Capital Resources To meet our need for cash we closed an equity offering and raised $50,500 in Canadian dollars. We cannot guarantee that these funds will be sufficient to stay in business. If we find mineralized material and it is economically feasible to remove the mineralized material, we will attempt to raise additional money through a subsequent private placement, public offering or through loans. If the funds we raised are insufficient to complete our exploration of the property, we will have to find alternative sources, like a second public offering, a private placement of securities, or loans from our officers or others. At December 31, 2008, we had a working capital deficit of ($137,602), which is currently insufficient for us to implement our business plan. At the present time, we have not made any arrangements to raise additional cash other than through the offering that was registered with the SEC in March, 2008 and closed in 2008. If we need additional cash and can’t raise it we will either have to suspend operations until we do raise the cash, or cease operations entirely. The funds raised in the March, 2008 registration offering will allow the company to operate until March, 2010. Other than as described in this paragraph, we have no other financing plans.As of March 13, 2009, the second option payment of $75,000 had not been made. Accordingly, Lodestar executed an extension agreement dated March 12, 2009 with Claim Lake Nickel wherein Claim Lake agreed to extend the term for the second payment to March 13, 2010.
As of December 31, 2008, we have yet to generate any revenues. We issued 3,000,000 shares of common stock pursuant to the exemption from registration set forth in section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933. On November 15, 2006, the corporation issued 3,000,000 shares of restricted common stock to Ian McKinnon, Chief Executive Officer of Lodestar Mining, Incorporated, that Rule 144 of the Securities Act of 1933 defines as restricted securities. The shares were issued in consideration for payment of $30,000 US from Ian McKinnon. These shares will be restricted by the resale limitations of Rule 144 under the Securities Act of 1933. We registered 2,000,000 shares of common stock to be offered at $0.05 per share. In 2008, we issued 1,010,000 shares at $0.05 per share for a total of $50,500 (Canadian dollars).
As of December 31, 2008, our total assets were $9,806 US and our total liabilities were $147,408 US.
And again, a statement of its tenuous existence as a going concern:
NOTE 2 Going Concern These financial statements have been prepared on a going concern basis, which implies the Company will continue to realize its assets and discharge its liabilities in the normal course of business. The Company has never generated revenues since inception and has never paid any dividends and is unlikely to pay dividends or generate earnings in the immediate or foreseeable future. The continuation of the Company as a going concern is dependent upon the continued financial support from its shareholders, the ability of the Company to obtain necessary equity financing to continue operations and to determine the existence, discovery and successful exploration of economically recoverable reserves in its resource properties, confirmation of the Company’s interests in the underlying properties, and the attainment of profitable operations. The Company has had very little operating history to date. These financial statements do not include any adjustments to the recoverability and classification of recorded asset amounts and classification of liabilities that might be necessary should the Company be unable to continue as a going concern. These factors raise substantial doubt regarding the ability of the Company to continue as a going concern.And again, the solar project particulars:
Pittsgrove Solar FarmSomething that caught my eye on their site — which is repeated in the SEC 3Q 10-Q filing — a press release that talks about the ARRA incentive, a 30% cash payment in lieu of federal investment tax credit, and federally guaranteed loans and a 30% investment tax credit. Seems ALL of those would apply here, so let’s say Mr. Stella is “motivated.”
Here’s the article from Today’s Sunbeam:
512-acre solar farm proposed in Upper Pittsgrove Township By Today’s Sunbeam March 13, 2010, 6:42PMUPPER PITTSGROVE TWP. — Cropland here may see a new use in the near future after plans were submitted to the Upper Pittsgrove Township Planning Board to construct a 512-acre solar farm here.
… means, motive and opportunity…
Scoping Comments for National Park Service
Scoping Comments for the National Park Service EIS regarding the Susquehanna-Roseland transmission project are due today. Here’s the Comments for Stop the Lines, and I’ll add those I receive from others that come in.
Monitoring Analytics’ PJM State of Market for 2009
At last, the report we’ve all been waiting for! TAA-DAAAA:
Don’t worry, I can FEEL you all rolling your eyes, just suspend disbelief and read this thing. If nothing else, just look at the pictures!
And if you want to download it, well, pour a cup of coffee, and maybe pack a lunch, it’s a big report with lots of graphics that takes a while. But it’s well worth it…
Garrigan tweets Franklin
In the news today is Rowan Garrigan, Mary Beth Garrigan’s daughter. I know Mary Beth as Director of the National Eagle Center in Wabasha back from when I was on the Board of Directors. Rowan is a typical teen, tweeting away, but for the duration of the Franklin exhibit at the Minnesota History Center, she is tweeting history — every day she tweets as Ben Franklin. I wonder what he’d think? And best of all, she says she loves “doing little experiments with electricity!” We need an electrical engineer with a brain like hers!
Overland’s Comments on Hiawatha Project
It’s my old neighborhood, and I just had to put my $0.02 in:
Overland Comments - Hiawatha DEIS
Exhibit A - NM-SPG - July 24, 2008
Exhibit B - NSP Petition for CFSR
Exhibit C - NSP/Taylors Falls/St. Croix Falls Agreement
Exhibit D - Chisago County Resolution re: Facilities Surcharge Rider
Exhibit E - Comments of Power Line Task Force - Docket 99-799
Exhibit F - Conductor Specs - from PUC Docket 01-1958, Ex 35 Application, Appendix 7
Exhibit G - Edison Institute - Transmission Property Values Report
Exhibits D and E, oh my, time flies… I’d completely forgotten about those. And the utilities keep singing the same old tired songs…
Goodhue Wind Truth in the news
AVA Goodhue Wind has applied for a Certificate of Need and a Routing permit, and there are two Power Purchase Agreement dockets open at the PUC. To see what’s been filed:
- Go to www.puc.state.mn.us
- Click on “Search eDockets“
- Search for:
- 08-1233 - Wind Siting Permit
- 09-1186 - Certificate of Need
- 09-1349 - Power Purchase Agreement
- 09-1350 - Power Purchase Agreement
The EIS Scoping Meeting was held by the MN Dept. of Commerce MOES last Thursday, and here’s the report from the Red Wing Republican Beagle:
Weighing in on windMAZEPPA - Larry Hartman threw a question out to the large crowd gathered Thursday to learn and comment about a proposed 52-turbine wind farm in rural Goodhue.
“What is wind?” the Minnesota Office of Energy Security staffer asked.
Mumbles from the crowd highlighted what has divided some neighbors and friends the past few years since wind energy companies came knocking, offering landowners money to house turbines.
“An investment.”
“Energy.”
“A scam.”
More than 30 residents provided a wide variety of opinions and comments during a three-hour meeting to gather input for an environmental review required as part of AWA Goodhue’s certificate of need application filed with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission.
The company, managed by National Wind, also has filed a site permit application with the PUC, the state agency that handles such large-sale projects.
Some Goodhue County residents remain skeptical of the proposed 32,000-acre project that some of their neighbors and wind energy company advocates say will stimulate the area’s economy and help the state meet renewable energy demands.
Hundreds of project opponents - dubbed Goodhue Wind Truth - have submitted a petition to the Goodhue County Board asking for a “safe renewable energy plan.”
The petition asks commissioners to implement a one-half mile setback between wind turbines and homes to help reduce the health and safety threats residents say turbines pose.
“The safety and health of people is a priority over money,” said Steve Groth, a Belle Creek Township landowner and member of Goodhue Wind Truth. “The government is there to protect you. When you sidestep that issue, everything falls apart.”
Economic opportunity
Chuck Burdick, senior wind developer with National Wind, said his company’s project will bring 100 to 200 jobs to the area during construction and two to five permanent jobs.
He said leaseholders and participants will receive more than $20 million over the life of the project.
“We think that’s a significant economic injection into the area,” Burdick said.
Some area landowners agree.
They say harvesting wind gives farmers another way to supplement their income and that wind energy is another part of the changing rural lifestyle.
Larry Fox, a Belle Creek Township landowner, said he hears the hum of corn driers and can smell manure when the wind blows just right.
“I don’t complain,” he said. “We just adapt and know this is a farm community.”
Fox said he would receive $30,000 over the next 20 years for housing a wind turbine.
“That’s a tremendous amount of revenue for these small communities,” Fox said. “I think revenue outweighs a lot of factors here.”
Other farmers say they’re excited to house alternative energy on their land.
Sara Linker Nord lives in Minneola Township and has land in AWA Goodhue’s project footprint. She said she found the wind turbines just outside Palm Springs, Calif., “aesthetically pleasing and majestic” and was disappointed when she found out others did not feel the same.
“It gives farms another crop with little land loss,” she said. “Alternative energy created on American soil increases our energy independence.”
Health concerns
But opponents argue the dangers associated with wind turbines outweigh any alleged financial benefits.
“When you put these turbines up and call yourself and environmentalist, I’d like you to do some soul searching,” said Tom Schulte, a rural Goodhue County landowner who said he recently built a geothermally heated and cooled energy efficient home.
“Because you’re probably not doing it for the environment, you’re doing it because you’re profiting.”
Schulte and other opponents said the environment and rural landscape are at risk if wind energy is not developed properly and responsibly. Livestock, water supplies, agricultural land, bald eagles and other birds need to be protected and studies need to be completed to analyze wind farm impacts, several residents told state officials.
Opponents also argue the state-required setbacks between homes and turbines are not great enough to minimize safety and health issues associated with turbine shadow flicker and noise.
Minnesota law requires a minimum 500-foot setback from residences or the state noise standard, whichever is greater. Minnesota’s noise standard restricts wind turbines from exceeding 50 decibels at night.
In practice, meeting that standard often means placing wind turbines at distances of 700 to 1,200 feet, according to a recent report by the Minnesota Department of Health.
The DOH’s scientific study found that noise from wind turbines “generally is not a major concern for humans beyond a half-mile or so,” because of design innovations to reduce noise.
Goodhue Wind Truth members want at half-mile setbacks. AWA Goodhue is doing voluntary 1,500-foot setbacks (just over one-quarter mile) from non-participating residents, Burdick said.
Zumbrota Mayor Richard Bauer also asked state officials to consider two-mile setbacks from Zumbrota and Goodhue’s corporate limits to make sure the cities are able to grow in an “orderly manner.”
Comments for the environmental report will be accepted until March 26. They can be sent to Larry Hartman, Minnesota Department of Commerce, 85 Seventh Place E. Suite 500, St. Paul, MN 55101. Comments can be sent by e-mail to larry.hartman@state.mn.us.
Photo from the Country News - Does
Photo from the Country News - Does MOES’ Larry Hartman have a headache? Is he dreaming of retirement? He IS holding on to the microphone, word has it that people such as the speaker here, Dean Bungum, weren’t given the microphone to speak. It was standing room only for the MOES public meeting for the wind project going up on Dexter.
On March 4, Thursday, it was the same scene in Mazeppa for the Goodhue Wind Project… Oh, the AVA Goodhue Wind Project, the names have been changed to protect … nevermind. We don’t know why the name was changed. But there are new people involved. How does that change in ownership affect the already questioned C-BED status of this project?
They held the Goodhue meeting in Mazeppa? Why? Why not in Goodhue County? Why not at the Goodhue Lions Club? Why not at the Zumbrota school? Or the Legion on 58 in the middle of town…
There are some significant deadlines in the Goodhue Wind Project. Oh, first, to look up the dockets on PUC site:
CLICK HERE FOR PUC DOCKET SEARCH
Search for 09-1186 (Certificate of Need); 08-1233 (Siting) and 09-1349 & 09-1350 (Power Purchase Agmts)
IMPORTANT DATES:
March 15 - Comments in PPA Dockets on Xcel’s request for amendment - send to stuart.mitchell@state.mn.us and burl.haar@state.mn.us and file on eFiling if you can.
March 26 - Comments for scope of Environmental Report for Siting & Certificate of Need - send to larry.hartman@state.mn.us
March 29 - Reply Comments in PPA Dockets about others comments on Xcel’s request for amendment - send to stuart.mitchell@state.mn.us and burl.haar@state.mn.us and file on eFiling if you can.
Holler if questions!
Big Stone II transmission is DEAD
This was in the mail — what a day this has been. I’ve been buried in other things and lost track of this one.
Big Stone II transmission connected into CapX.
The transmission study shows that BSII transmission needs CapX:
Draft BSII Delivery Report to MISO
G392 System Impact Study Report Draft 8-24-06
BSII SPG Presentation 10-19-06
And the question remains — how much does CapX 2020 need BSII?
Thanks to a little birdie for bringing this PUC Order to my attention!!!
National Park Service extends Comment period
National Park Service has extended the deadline for EIS Scoping Comments on the Susquehanna-Roseland transmission project. WHEW! Now we have until March 12 to send our comments in!
NPS Home Page for Susquehanna-Roseland Transmission Project
Get your clues on Comments from what they do and do not include:
It’s in the Pocono Times:
Transmission line public scoping period extended
From the NPS blog:
Public Comment Period On Transmission Lines at Delaware Water Gap NRA, Appalachian Trail ExtendedPosted March 5th, 2010 by Kurt Repanshek
High public interest has prompted the superintendents of Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, and the Middle Delaware National Scenic and Recreational River and National Recreation Water Trail to extend by a week the public comment period on a proposal to run a transmission line across the areas.
The comment period was scheduled to end today, but has been extended through March 12.
There are numerous ways for the public to provide comments on the public scoping phase of the planning process, including leaving a message on the Park Planning Information Telephone Line (570-426-2491), submitting comments online through a link on the National Park Service Planning, Environment and Public Comment site, http://parkplanning.nps.gov (select Appalachian NST or Delaware Water Gap NRA), or by mailing comments to:
Detailed information about the need for the EIS and the project timeline
can be found on the National Park Service Planning, Environment and Public
Comment site: http://parkplanning.nps.gov.
DUH… eastern states don’t want our transmission
Repeat after me… EASTERN STATES DON’T WANT OUR MIDWEST TRANSMISSION.
Once more with feeling… EASTERN STATES DON’T WANT OUR MIDWEST TRANSMISSION!!!
And they don’t give a rodent’s rump what we do with our transmission but THEY DO NOT WANT TO PAY FOR IT!
It’s not anything new, but it seems that the message is getting through all the way to Iowa. Soon Minnesota? The message? That the east coast does not want Midwest transmission, that they have their own renewables and not only that, they know that transmission from the Midwest means coal and, most importantly, THEY WILL NOT PAY FOR TRANSMISSION FOISTED UPON THEM.
The 7th Circuit case tossing out PJM’s cost apportionment scheme must be having an impact because everyone is freakin’ about cost allocation. Again, GOOD! The court said that PJM could not shove the costs of transmission on those who do not benefit from it:
Illinois Commerce Commission v. FERC - August 6, 2009
Enter the Coalition for Fair Transmission Policy, just launched today with a press conference in Washington, D.C.
Dig this from their site:
HA! I love it when that happens…
Here’s some background on our Midwest Transmission — transmission we don’t need and they don’t want:
This opposition to Midwest transmission is nothing new, I’ve entered documentation in the record in a couple of proceedings now, but what is new is that as of today’s “launch,” there’s now an industry group advocating against Midwest transmission, and that’s one utility interest I’m glad to see hopping mad as hell and not going to take it anymore! GOOD! Maybe that will help stop this stupid transmission-fest across the Midwest.
PUC Chair David Boyd had it right when he testified before Minnesota’s Legislative Energy Commission and led off with, “We need a business plan.” Yes, that’s true, there is no business plan, and there is no MARKET for transmission. I just hope that message gets through before “we” build and WE have to pay for all these wires in the air!
Here are a few recent posts of mine on this, followed by today’s article in the Des Moines Register.
Offshore transmission, NOT transmission from the Midwest
Eastern Governors stand up against transmission!
And today’s Des Moines Register article:
Eastern states balk at paying wind cost
By DAN PILLER • dpiller@dmreg.com • March 5, 2010
Alliant Energy has its objections
But as wind energy becomes bigger and more corporate, the utility industry is divided even in Iowa.
Other states have their own plans
While Iowa has speckled its countryside with wind turbines, other states have similar aspirations.
And now for a brief interlude…
Just in from my friends at Concerned River Valley Citizens — as Alan would say, “That’s decorative!”
Inciteful repartee to follow, I need more tea and time!
Demand so low PJM cancels RPM auction
Demand is down, down, down, though PJM is going to make us wait until March 11 to see the 2009 State of the Market Report for the full year… boooooooo-hisssssssssssssssssss.
But this little snippet did show up in a web update list:
Sent: Thur 02.04.2010 1:01 p.m.
Subject: 2011/2012 Second Incremental Auction Cancelled
Please direct any questions to the RPM Hotline at rpm_hotline@pjm.com.
So the good news is that PJM is now admitting that “the 2010 RTP peak load forecast for the 2011/2012 Delivery Year is lower than the peak load forecast used in the 2011/2012 Base Residual Auction.” The bad news is that with the RPM auction canceled we will not have new numbers for energy efficiency and Semand Side Management, all those things that they are saying cannot possibly do the job that their planned pet transmission projects can. Funny how that works. And this is the kind of thing that needs to be very, very public — demand is so far down that it’s lower than their forecast used! hee hee hee hee
I love it when the market decides!
PJM State of Market release 3/11
This is one of those reports that I’m really looking forward to…
Danger, high voltage!
Oh my… danger — powerlines kill!
Authorities believe Wash. man electrocuted by urinating on downed power line after car crashMONTESANO, Wash. - Authorities believe a Washington man was killed by accidentally urinating on a downed power line after a car crash.
Grays Harbor County sheriff’s Deputy Dave Pimentel said Monday 50-year-old Roy Messenger was not seriously hurt after he collided with a power pole Friday and called a relative to pull his car from a ditch.
However, family members found Messenger electrocuted when they arrived.
Pimentel says Messenger apparently urinated into a roadside ditch but didn’t see the live wire. The urine stream likely served as a conductor, allowing the electricity to reach his body.
Pimentel says there will be an autopsy but burn marks indicated the way the electricity traveled through Messenger’s body.
Xcel’s 10-K and a die-in!
***********************************************
I just got a tip on what looks like a great book:
The Grid: A Journey Through the Heart of Our Electrified World
***********************************************
XCEL’s 2009 10-K just came out, and demand is down, down from 2008, but unfortunately not all that much… maybe next year!
CLICK HERE FOR XCEL ENERGY’S 2009 10-K
And that, folks, is Xcel’s peak demand, from 2000 through 2009.
Now, if someone will only tell me how to label the X axis… I cannot figure it out. “1″ is 2000, “2″ is 2001, etc…
And about that die-in, hot off the “press” from Ted Nace:
Local Citizens ‘Die-in’ at Xcel HQ in Coal ProtestGroup calls on Xcel to Keep Comanche 3 Closed and Produce 100% Renewable Electricity by 2020
February 26, 2010
Denver, CO - At 11:45am on Friday, February 26th, local citizens demonstrated at the Denver headquarters of Xcel Energy - located at the corner of 17th St. and Lawrence St. - in protest of the utility’s impending plan to bring a new coal-fired power plant online in Pueblo, CO. The lunch hour protest called on Xcel executives to move Colorado in the right direction by keeping the Comanche 3 coal-fired power plant closed. Protestors demonstrated in a ‘die-in’ in front of the building’s main entrance to highlight the grim consequences that coal has on our lives and those of future generations. Simultaneously, two activists clad in hazmat suits dropped a banner off an adjoining bridge on Lawrence St. Police arrived on scene but no arrests were made.
The 750-megawatt Comanche Unit 3 would be the largest coal-fired power plant in the state, surpassing even the mammoth Cherokee coal plant in North Denver. “At a time when the costs of coal are becoming increasingly clear and the benefits of clean energy are ever more apparent, building the largest coal-fired power plant in the state is taking us 180 degrees in the wrong direction,” said Amy Guinan, an activist with Power Past Coal.
According to Xcel’s own data, the Comanche 3 plant would emit over 20 million pounds of CO2 a day, 2 pounds of mercury a week and thousands of tons of particulates and haze forming pollutants every year. The plant would also consume over 4 million gallons of water a day.
“Xcel has already wasted nearly $1 billion on this planet-destroying boondoggle. Operating it could cost ratepayers billions more. For the sake of Colorado’s children, and future generations, it is time for Xcel to pull the plug on this ill-conceived coal plant and redirect their investments towards making Colorado 100% renewable,” said Tom Weis, President of Wind Power Solutions.
Xcel has had ongoing problems bringing the plant online. While Xcel originally hoped to bring the plant into operation last fall, a variety of technical problems - currently involving a boiler pump - continue to push back its scheduled opening.
“There are a lot more than just technical problems with this new coal-fired power plant. There are serious social, economic and environmental problems. Rather than talking about a delayed opening, we should be talking about a permanent closure. Instead of building a new coal-fired plant, Xcel should be investing heavily in Colorado’s abundant solar and wind resources,” said Brian Bernhardt, an activist with Power Past Coal.
Today’s protest is part of an ongoing series of actions to move Colorado beyond coal. Sparked by the failure of elected and appointed officials to take meaningful action to move rapidly to renewable energy, the Power Past Coal campaign is building a grassroots protest effort. With the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment approving the permit-to-pollute for both the Valmont and Cherokee stations despite overwhelming public opposition, citizens are prepared to ramp up the pressure on Xcel executives, as well as Colorado politicians and regulatory agencies.
“Our leaders are failing to lead and Xcel is failing to take their responsibility seriously. Xcel should expect more protests and actions unless they start closing down coal plants and moving Colorado to 100% renewable electricity,” Kate Clark, a Power Past Coal activist.
Xcel has been challenged on multiple fronts this week. On Tuesday evening, Pueblo residents - where the new coal-fired power plant is built - raised serious concerns about high-pitched noises from the plant which are affecting people as far as nine miles away. Meanwhile, WildEarth Guardians petitioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to protect clean air and the climate and overturn an air pollution permit allowing Xcel Energy to illegally pollute while operating the Pawnee coal-fired power plant.
Tom Micheletti in Sen. Amy Klobuchar’s office?
So what is Tom Micheletti doing in Senator Amy Klobuchar’s office?
Why is Senator Klobuchar entertaining more stories, fiction like “The Virtues of Coal Gasification in Northern Minnesota?”
Enough of Klobuchar and her pandering to fossils and their fuel - time to vote her OUT!
Feasibility of Undergrounding 500kV Lines
I just found this, from the Alberta Electric System Operator, and will put more up about it tomorrow:
Feasibility Study for 500kV AC Underground CablesFERC cost-apportionment docket heats up
The cost apportionment remand at FERC is heating up. It’s that case where the 7th Circuit threw out the PJM cost apportionment scheme:
Illinois Commerce Commission v. FERC - August 6, 2009
It went back to FERC and so FERC issued an Order requiring PJM to produce things that… well… things that will demonstrate that there’s no need for this project, things that will demonstrate the benefactor of these transmission lines, things that PJM doesn’t really want the world to know, like how they’ve incorporated O-P-T-I-M-I-Z-A-T-I-O-N, things going directly to N-E-E-D!
Seeing that, well, Stop the Lines had to join in, as did the Municipal Intervenors:
Stop The Lines! Motion for Limited Intervention
PJM begged for more time, an extension of 45 days!
PJM’s Motion for More Time to Answer
And for some bizarre reason, FERC gave it to them:
Meanwhile, Exelon wants to bring in the kitchen sink, including 345kV transmission:
And parties they are a freakin’ and filing:
Baltimore Gas & Electric Response to Exelon
Dayton Power & Light response to Exelon
And then the weirdest of all - the American Wind Energy Ass (AWEA) wants to intervene, citing “the current significance of this issue in the context of efforts to build transmission to bring location-constrained, renewable resources to load…” Ummmm… SAY WHAT??
AWEA-SEIA Motion to Intervene Out of Time
OK, I give up… in what parallel or alternate universe is the PATH or Susquehanna-Roseland line for wind? WHERE DO THEY GET THESE IDEAS? I want to see the basis for that statement. PRODUCE!
Earth to AWEA — can you spell P-R-O-J-E-C-T M-O-U-N-T-A-I-N-E-E-R?
If you need a hint, go to FERC eLibrary and search for A05-03. Happy reading!
NPS scoping hearings in progress
Scene from yesterday’s NPS meeting at Camp Jefferson, Lake Hopatcong, NJ
PSEG’s Susquehanna-Roseland transmission line through the Delaware Water Gap is under scrutiny.
Here’s the Daily Record’s photo gallery
Just out - PSEG year end info (just searched SEC and don’t see it there yet):
PSEG 4Q 2009 - Generation Measures
PSEG 4Q 2009 - Electric Revenues
And for some reason, I get that old hook line, a little perverted, i.e., “We gotta lock down our electric revenue, and then we’ll take it higher!”:
Yesterday was the second of three public comment hearings that the National Park Service is holding regarding PSEG’s application to expand the Right of Way and run its Susquehanna-Roseland through the Delaware Water Gap, a premier federally designated “wild and scenic” area. The good news is that people are really turning out, the first meeting, in Bushkill, PA, was about 100, and this meeting was twice that, standing room only in the log hall of Camp Jefferson.
Here is the NPS’ take on framework and issues for the Environmental Impact Statement:
Here’s a few snippets that I really find interesting — and of course want to expand on:
Air Quality
Construction and maintenance activities would impact air quality.
Viewsheds
The new transmission lines and associated roadways would affect the visual viewshed. Viewshed impacts would be permanent. A separate viewshed analysis should be done for scenic and visual impacts. A comprehensive list of the viewsheds at DEWA does not exist at this time. However, the APPA is considered a scenic viewshed. The baseline conditions are represented by the current viewshed, which has not yet been evaluated.
Climate Change/Greenhouse Gases
How the project contributes to the production of greenhouse gases and climate change, as well as how climate change would impact the project and park resources must be addressed in the EIS.
Viewshed Appreciation
The new transmission lines and associated roadways could adversely affect the visitors’ appreciation of the visual viewshed. These impacts would be permanent. A separate viewshed analysis should be done for scenic and visual impacts for visitor experience.
The one that jumps out to me is “air quality.” I note that under “Climate Change/Greenhouse Gases” they acknowledge the project contribution of greenhouse gas and climate change, and that also needs to be added to the Air Quality section, the project contribution of pollutants to air quality.
Why? Check the RTEP, PJM’s 2007 RTEP that this Susquehanna-Roseland project was based on:
Critical RTEP Issues and Upgrades
PJM continues to address a number of issues with
a bearing on reliability in Pennsylvania and the
regional transmission expansion plans required to
maintain it:
• Increasing power transfers through Pennsylvania to feed eastern Mid-Atlantic PJM load centers including those in Pennsylvania are expected to cause overloads beginning in 2016 on key circuits in Pennsylvania. New high voltage backbone facilities are required to mitigate these reliability issues. The new backbone facilities will also be assessed for their ability to support deliveries from a cluster of new coal-fired generating facilities currently proposed for central and northeastern Pennsylvania. Three major new backbone transmission facilities have been approved by the PJM to resolve growing reliability criteria violations in eastern Mid-Atlantic PJM and west/central Pennsylvania, upgrades that are now part of PJM’s RTEP:
• Susquehanna – Lackawanna – Jefferson – Roseland 500 kV circuit
• Amos – Bedington – Kemptown (PATH) 765 & 500 kV circuit
• Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway (MAPP): Possum Point – Calvert Cliffs – Indian River – Salem 500 kV Circuit
2007 RTEP, p.259-260 (emphasis added)
Beginning on p. 262, the RTEP lists 2,712 (check my math) of coal in queue. Yup, Susquehanna-Roseland could handle that! Here’s the full PA chapter of the 2007 RTEP — see for yourself:
2007 RTEP - Section 4k - Pennsylvania
The New Jersey one says essentially the same thing:
2007 RTEP - Section 4h - New Jersey
Those new coal plants and the impacts of facilitating/enabling those new coal plants and the impact on the Class I park must be addressed. The operational impacts, contributions to greenhouse gases, applies equally to air quality. This was an issue with Voyageurs National Park in the Mesaba Project review, and it should be here.
Here’s the “study area” designated by National Park Service - the “no data” spot is Picatinny Arsenal. What happens if you build transmission over an arsenal? What is the impact on the park if Picatinny Arsenal goes BOOM!?!?!
Here are some articles, thanks to Scott Olson ( Fired up and ready to go one more time! ) for compilation:
- Last stand: Critics slam power line plans across Delaware Water Gap, Appalachian Trail (Daily Record)
- Crowd of 200 puts Park Service on notice (New Jersey Herald)
- N.J. residents, environmentalists urge National Park Service to reject proposed $750M power line (Star-Ledger)
- New Jersey residents make plea to National Park Service to oppose power lines project (The Express-Times)
LS Power’s Sunrise River plant voted DOWN!
It’s nice to win sometimes, even in absentia…
Tonight the Chisago County Board of Commissioners, on a 3-2 vote, voted NOT to approve their proposed Development Agreement with LS Power for an 855MW (give or take a few hundred, depending on their mood, what they ate for lunch, whatever) natural gas electric generating plant. Like WOW!
Congratulations to Concerned River Valley Citizens for a job well done, and thanks to Tom Dunnwald who filled in for me tonight, but this is no time to let up — the work’s not over — there’s still the matter of the need for an Overlay Essential Services Ordinance that addresses generating plants and whatever other noxious infrastructure somebody might come up with.
This LS Power mess is the PROCEEDING that Concerned River Valley Citizens intervened in, under the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act, and were shut out by the County Attorney, Janet Reider (bad idea), and we just filed another Notice of Intervention yesterday or today.
There were some interesting comments, like “we’ve done the best we can in the time we had” indicating some sort of train schedule that has now been derailed. They tried to prevent attorneys from speaking, and the worst of that came from Commissioner Ben Montzka, who is an attorney himself! He should know better…
In the packet for tonight’s meeting:
It’s all on video, so we’ll have that soon. I can’t wait to see the snippets on YouTube!
Here’s from KARE 11:
(it’s not up yet)
More later


