- Go! Northfield-Dundas
- Submit Content
Carol Overland - Legalectric
Carol A. Overland, Overland Law Office -- Utility Regulatory and Land Use Advocacy
Updated: 31 min 12 sec ago
Wisconsin’s Senator Tammy Baldwin has introduced the Crude-by-Rail Safety Act of 2015. Tammy Baldwin and also Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Patty Murray (D-WA) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) are the authors. GOOD, ’bout time we get some federal legislation moving on this! How many more trains need to explode before we get some action?
BIG thanks to CARS (Citizens Acting for Rail Safety) for all their work on this, and for letting us all know that this bill is in the works.
Contact your Senators, ask them to support this bill, and ask them to sign on as co-authors. Let’s get this moving down the track!
Here’s the bill:Crude-by-Rail Safety Act of 2015
And here are the basic points covered by the bill:
This is such an important start to protect the safety of everyone along the many Bakken BOOM! routes throughout the U.S.
Call or email your Senators today in support of this bill!
Here’s a report from “The Bakken” on this legislation:
This was last Thursday evening at the Senate Environment and Energy Committee. Alan Muller and I were there for SF 1735 (the Xcel Energy e21 Initiative start)(see Great Plains Institute site) and the SF 1431 Energy Ominous Bill. Before the start on SF 1735, there was announcement of a “delete all” which means everything out and into the dumpster, and new language… and then after that, the SF 1431 Energy Ominous Bill into which the neutered SF 1735 went, and then on with the amendments to the SF 1431 Energy Ominous Bill! WHEW! What a… a… well…
There’s a lot to find offensive.
Here are the Committee meeting MINUTES.
Here’s the audio of the Committee meeting:
Here’s the two energy bills at issue:S.F. 1735 Marty Public utilities performance-based multiyear rate plans authorization (for possible inclusion in omnibus energy bill). S.F. 1431 Marty Omnibus Energy Bill.
First, regarding SF 1735, WOW, what a mess. There was a delete all and what was left was pretty much nothing, and it was, immediately afterward, incorporated into the SF 1431 Energy Ominous Bill. But let’s start with SF 1735.
Here’s the A-2 delete-all Amendment S.F. 1735
Here’s the handout I’d made, but after the delete-all, we couldn’t talk about SF 1735 as introduced!
Overland_Testimony_3-19-2015 – Not handed out because we were limited to A-2
The good news is that the Office of the Attorney General had a lot to do with the gutting of the e21 Initiative S.F. 1735. And better, the AG’s Office had a rep there, James Canaday, who testified against S.F. 1735. Sen. Katie Sieben was chairing as Marty was in the hot seat introducing his bill, and she would not allow testimony about S.F. 1735 as introduced, “we’re here to talk about the A-2 Amendment.” Despite that, Canaday was able to raise four primary points of objection:
- S.F. 1735 would do away with contested case, and lines 3.9 – 3.15 would institute a “stakeholder” process (at which point, Sieben interrupted and told him not to testify about S.F. 1735).
- A.G.’s Office does not recommend we experiment with such radical changes, such as changing a 3 year to a 5 year multi-year rate case. The first multi-year rate case is being decided tomorrow, and it was a lot of work. PUC in this first multi-year case noted that if a utility cannot prove up its claim formulas, we will limit the categories that utilities can claim formulaic increases.
- This is a step toward the end of cost-based regulation and to allow projected increases based on formulas, not costs. The PUC has said it has “great doubt about formula-based rates.”
- This bill does not clarify how interim rate determination will work.
e21 Initiative and S.F. 1735 as introduced is off the agenda, at least for now. There’s a “study” in the A-2 Amendment, now added to the Energy Ominous Bill:
Something I remain concerned about is the provision for recovery of stranded costs:
What we learned in the deregulation discussion 15-20 years ago is that what Xcel f/k/a NSP was prepping us for was for payment by ratepayers of their “stranded costs,” meaning their investment into whatever facility that was then “divested” in deregulation. Everyone was on board, nearly everyone, the “enviros” were bobbleheads in the rear window, agreeing to everything, and then…
We are now paying for the shift from “Minnesota” need to “regional” need, and we are paying for our acquiescence to the transmission build-out that facilitates the marketing of power to areas where it sells at a higher price than here in Minnesota:
Corneli was correct in noting that the utilities didn’t have “stranded costs,” the utilities had “stranded assets,” and if deregulation were to happen, THEY’D OWE US MONEY, not the other way around! SNORT!
That’s basic economics! So when you hear talk of “stranded costs” or “stranded assets” (make sure you and “they” understand and identify which is which!), or worse, “rate smoothing” as touted by e21 Initiative, “theoretical depreciation reserve” which is voo doo accounting lowering the utility’s revenue requirement, resulting in lower rates, ask, “What exactly is going on here” and “what does this mean for Minnesota ratepayers, ALL CLASSES, EACH CLASS, of Minnesota ratepayers?
The good news from last Thursday is that the e21 bill, the beginning of toadying for the e21 Initiative agenda which is HUGE, is history.
Next, the A-2 Amendment to S.F. 1735 was then added to S.F. 1431:S.F. 1431 Marty Omnibus Energy Bill.
Here’s the result of all the wheeler-dealering:
Yes, it is indeed gross, and the process to get to this engrossment was painful to watch.
First out the gate was the A-12 amendment, by Sen. Weber, who is from far Southwest Minnesota, amending Minn. Stat. 500.30 to extend the limit on wind rights leases from 7 to 8 years, specifically for the Black Oak/Getty wind project because it won’t be completed by the time the 7 year period is up. Sen. Weber’s email: email@example.com
WHAT? That’s special legislation, DOH! I asked whether he’d provided notice to the affected landowners and he gave a wandering avoidant response that showed that the affected landowners had not been consulted. How disrespectful can he get? And why is he carrying this amendment, and not the local Senator for the affected area? Were the Senator and Rep informed about this? Or are they in cahoots with the project developer? What’s the story here?
Then there were a couple of rational amendments, passing and not passing, and then back to bizarre… and for this round of BIZARRE it was Sen. Osmek’s turn, first an A-6 amendment to repeal the nuclear moratorium, which went down, not added to Energy Omnibus bill. Then the most bizarre one, the A-7 Amendment (see also SF 231, HF 333) that any EPA regulations would need to go through the legislature:
There were audible gasps around the room… and Sen. Marty delivered a very even explanation of federal and state jurisdiction, and Sen. Osmek either didn’t know, didn’t understand, or didn’t care, and pushed for a vote, and of course that went down in flames as well. Why would he do something like that which has such a clear detrimental impact on his credibility? Here’s Sen. Osmek’s email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Here’s who’s on the Senate Environment and Energy Committee. Call them, email them, call and email them, and let them know what you think, very specifically and in technicolor.
Contact YOUR State Senator and all the State Senators to let them know what you think:
If it’s “private” why remove a public funding prohibition?
Closed door meeting, and why?
“North American High Speed Rail Group” I don’t see a lobbyist principal registration. Joe Sperber, Chuck Michael… don’t see lobbyist registrations for them either. And who else is missing?
And if it’s private investors, why do Rep. Drazkowski, Rep. Garafolo, Rep. Norton, and Sen. Senjem think there needs to be any legislation? What’s the bill for? Why would government need to be involved? Oh… right… because they want to lift the prohibition of public money being used, yeah, that’s it… If it’s private development, why lift the ban? How could that possibly be made worthwhile for these legislators? And how is that in the public interest?!?!?!
From the video:
“Representative Pat Garafolo reached an agreement with the group…”
“Rochester lawmakers are concerned about a law prohibiting public money being used on the Zip Rail, and think a public/private partnership might be a better route.”
Here’s the video:
And in the Post Bulletin:
From the article:
During an interview after the meeting, North American’s CEO and president, Joe Sperber, said the company believes it can do something that has never been done in the United States before —privately build and operate a high-speed rail system. The key to making the plan a success is that it would not rely simply on the rail. Instead, Sperber said the project would including economic development tied into the project.
“Rail by itself isn’t always going to be economically viable, so you look at rail, you look at real estate development and then you look at the economic development that comes out of all of that,” he said.
Also from KTTC in Rochester, which identifies Joe Sperber as a wheeler-dealer on this project (what’s his interest?):
ST. PAUL, Minn. (KTTC) – Days after the announcement of a privately-funded plan to build a Zip Rail line from Rochester to the Twin Cities, state and local officials got some answers on Thursday. In a private meeting, business leaders expressed their seriousness in pursuing an idea that has been in the making for years.
The North American High Speed Rail Group got in front of lawmakers in St. Paul to reveal its plans moving forward with the rail line, without eminent domain, or the use of taxpayer dollars. It’s an idea that seems almost too good to be true, but it’s one many legislators are on board with.
Currently, the Highway 52 corridor seems to be the most viable option to both business leaders and legislators. It would be done without a cent of taxpayer funding and has lawmakers ready to help clear the path for rail tracks.
“If you don’t get a stop, you might get some opportunity to get some of the other economic development that comes along with the rail, such as operations and maintenance bases and things like that,” said Sperber.
The group’s first environmental impact study should be completed by the end of the year, but other feasibility studies and permits also have to be completed. Norton said the group would most likely be leasing state land to build the Zip Rail. Sperber also points out the rail would be able to withstand any kind of weather, so Minnesotans fearing wintry impacts have nothing to worry about.
Please say no to S.F. 1735, a bill that would result in removal of the regulatory protections for rate-payers and the public, and let utilities have the ability to charge us for private costs, and costs that have not been demonstrated to be prudent expenditures.
Little by little, Xcel Energy’s e21 Initiative is slithering into bills before the House and Senate Energy Committees.
Before anyone can vote on these bills, they should read Alfred Kahn’s “The Economics of Regulation,” both Volume 1 and Volume 2.
What’s e21 Initiative? Here’s what Xcel filed at PUC, docket 14-1055:
What’s up with S.F. 1735? Well, check out this version, with yellow highlighting (and this is NOT all-inclusive):
SF 1735doesn’t have the part about “Competitive Rate for Energy-Intensive Trade-Exposed Electric Utility Customer” part that HF 1315 does, though we’ll see what the mines and Koch Refinery have to say about that when the Energy Ominous bill comes together and everyone has their hand out and foot in the door.
SF 1735 is a problem because… where to start… the first problem is that it proposes, as Xcel does in e21, a BUSINESS PLAN which “replaces a general rate case filing,” REPLACES! The standard it must meet is that it result in “just and reasonable rates,” and there’s nothing about “prudent” and there’s nothing about being in the public interest. DOH!
And dig how it would be approved — they SHALL approve:
Stakeholder group… right, we know who that is, and we sure know who that isn’t! And that’s the e21 Initiative mantra, stakeholders, and from who was included in e21, we know who would be deemed a stakeholder — all those who have done deals with Xcel Energy! Oh, and DOH, they want approvals at the PUC based on “Settlement Agreements.” Right, like the one that opened the door and welcomed CapX 2020 transmission, and that horriffic “it’s a deal, it’s a package deal, and it’s a good deal” of the 2005 Ch 97 – Transmission Omnibus Bill from Hell with Xcel transmission perks, CWIP and C-BED :
PUC decision based on “stakeholders” and deals with Xcel Energy? No, I think not.
Per the House hearing on HF 341 (see also S.F. 237), Minnesota should now be an electricity exporter, which is one between-the-lines goal of e21 Initiative, the others being ability to build without demonstrating need, to use ratepayer money for market development, to eliminate contested cases and use “Settlement Agreements,” which they’ve done expertly in the past. Exporting for profit is doable, now that we have the transmission in place. It would help Xcel Energy to just get rid of that Certificate of Need requirement, which HF 341 would do for natural gas plants of any size, i.e., 800 MW (like the LS Power Sunrise Station proposed for Chisago County, Lent Township) if it’s for sale into the MISO market. As you know, also up for consideration is SF 306 & 536, HF 338, which would lift the nuclear prohibition and allow a CoN for Monticello or anywhere. There’s no need, instead there’s excess generation, but that electricity could also go into the market, and with Construction Work in Progress, Minn. Stat. 216B.16, Subd. 6a, we ratepayers could pay for that private market activity. NO. NO. NO.NO!
The situation we’re in is NOT new to Xcel or any other utility.
- Distribution system is utility responsibility as franchise holder and regulated utility, but they’ve neglected the distribution system over decades. They have chosen not to upgrade and not to bring it into the 21st Century. That neglect is not ours to correct. Xcel has twice tried to invade and inflict communities with transmission when they had identified a distribution system deficit — Hiawatha and Hollydale. NO!
- Transmission deficit a decade ago was caused by putting so many IPP gas plants on line without requiring transmission upgrades. This is reflected in the TLTG tables for the SW MN 345 kV line, PUC Docket 01-1958. It also became an issue when Big Stone II was proposed because at that time it was “cause cost pays” and they hadn’t been charging gas plants but were going to charge BSII for interconnection costs, and BSII objected (see “standstill agreement” and withdrawal of Bill Gates’ Cascade Investment from that project at Legalectric: Bill Gates & Otter Tail at the PUC Tuesday…). That transmission CoN was denied, approved, and plant was withdrawn so non-issue. Then utilities and paid-for-NGOs went to MISO and FERC to find a way to spread the payment of transmission construction costs around, which they did. The ones building it are not necessarily the ones paying for it, and it’s us ratepayers paying for transmission construction all around the country (See Schedule 26A, MISO Tariff, also Tariff MM) and the PUC has yet to address whether that should be paid for by us — but wait, it’s FERC rates, so the PUC has no say… well, that MISO MVP bill hasn’t come before the PUC yet, and that’s the last thing Xcel wants. That capital cost is for private purpose transmission (market transactions) and as such, it is not ours to pay.
- Generation changed decades ago too, moving away from utility construction and ownership, collect revenue for that, and now it’s morphed to an IPP (Independent Power Producer) mode where a third party takes on risk and cost of construction and sells power to utilities. It’s been that way for decades. Xcel has done some coal plant update, and nuclear update/uprate (grossly over budget by factor of 2+), but no new plants. This shift from that regulated revenue stream was a business choice of utilities, but now they’re looking to make up that revenue that they don’t get for building the plants. That business choice is not ours to “fix.”
- Rates — Utilities want out of rate cases! Of course they’d want that, Xcel has lost ground in their rate demands the last few rounds. A Business Plan is not adequate, however, they need to prove up their expenditures if they expect us to pay them, and we should not, must not, be assessed for their market private purpose expenses, like transmission for export. The bills for CapX 2020 ($2 billion) and for MISO MVP projects ($5.2 billion across Midwest) are the types of large expenses that they do not want to have to justify. Not wanting to go through a rate case is no reason for us to let go of that protective review, or to let them charge us for things that are not public purpose expenditures necessitated by their obligation to provide universal service under their franchise.
- Deregulation — this “e21 Initiative” looks and feels like the 2000 deregulation push to me, particularly with all the support from “environmental” and “advocacy” organizations, well funded, and funded I believe by Xcel and cronies (and that information should be made public). Utilities wanted deregulation (back when Enron and Xcel’s NRG was making 300% profits screwing over California in an orchestrated rate skyrocket) and at that time, Xcel had all the “environmental” organizations behind it as “inevitable restructuring.” Everyone was jumping on the deregulation bandwagon, all bozos on that bus, and that’s how this e21 feels. Lots of people agreeing without knowing what they’re talking about, without understanding the consequences. Back in that earlier deregulation push, the utilities also had everyone on board to pay them “stranded costs” for their large generating plants. Thankfully the A.G. stood up to that pointing out that deregulation is a disaster where ever it goes, and that the claimed “stranded costs” were really stranded assets, and if anyone owed anyone money, the utilities owed us for their assets that were paid for and fully depreciated. Read Corneli on Stranded Assets.
This is not new to utilities. It is not our job to correct their business plan errors, to pay for their neglect, or to finance their market activities.
More on this soon… but the short version, NO to SF 1735. NO to SF 1431.NO! NO! NO!
It’s not in the public interest.
And by the way, the “WE NEED MORE” histrionic mantra that you year year after year is false. Excess generation? Yes — here’s the peak demand that Xcel Energy has reported on its SEC 10-K filings since 1995:
Also from the 2014 SEC 10-K link:
The question to ask is “What’s stopping utilities?” And it’s not our regulatory system. It’s that utilities are looking for additional ways to transfer their costs to ratepayers without regulatory review.
The Dept. of Justice released its “Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department” and Ferguson’s Police Chief Thomas Jackson resigned shortly thereafter, and then during a protest near the police station, to officers were shot, apparently from a very long distance away, fortunately not seriously injured and released from the hospital the following day. There’ve been no arrests yet. What a morass of death and upheaval…
Here’s the report, it’s a doozy, a report that should be read by anyone who has an opinion about this morass, anyone interested in race and class, law, policing, criminal justice.
I was not happy with the MnDOT Rail Plan, and let them know, particularly that it is not OUR job, “we the people,” to pay for upgrades and safety measures required due to the super volatile Bakken BOOM! oil, and today the Gov. stood up to the railroads.
Here are my Comments:
Here’s that Draft Rail Plan, comments were due Tuesday:
From today’s STrib, Gov. Mark Dayton is leaning on the railroads:Dayton pressures railroads to pony up for safety upgrades across Minnesota
Seven trains haul North Dakota crude across Minnesota daily. The Democratic governor has suggested a series of tax changes and fees on railroads to upgrade railroad crossings and improve first responder training to prepare for a major accident.
Dayton brought officials from towns with heavy train traffic to St. Paul Friday to ramp up pressure for his plan. Dayton says railroad companies’ opposition to pay more for safety improvements is “totally unacceptable.”
Today PJM released its “State of the Market” report, and this is something that everyone in the MISO region should read because afterall, that’s their “Target Market.”2014 State of the Market Report for PJM Posting Date Volume I
Volume I (2MB PDF) contains the introduction.Volume II
Volume II (14MB PDF) contains detailed analysis and results.
I LOVE IT WHEN THIS HAPPENS — PJM PEAK DEMAND DOWN 10.1%
And here’s the MISO LMP map so you can see just what the electrical market is doing in real time:
Four years ago today nuclear reactors at Fukushima Daiichi started melting down.
Four years later…
Four years later…Some residents to ‘come home to Fukushima disaster zone
At a meeting Sunday, Miyakoji residents were told that radiation contamination levels had lowered sufficiently for their return to the area — though some voiced concern over existing radiation levels despite decontamination efforts around some communities.
Four years later…
Four years later…Navy Sailors Possibly Exposed to Fukushima Radiation Fight for Justice
In March of 2011, the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan rushed to Japan to help after the disastrous tsunami. Since then, many sailors from that ship have fallen ill, possibly as a result of exposure to radiation from the Fukushima nuclear meltdown. They will soon have their day in court.
The complaint is 100 pages long and contains the names of 247 sick sailors along with details pertaining to reactor construction, water samples taken, Navy tactics and Japanese politics. It assails company greed just as it does the negligence of those who built the Fukushima reactors — and goes on to censure global politics and the cynicism of humankind. A kind of Old Testament fury infuses the text, and the complaint is so sweeping that it almost loses track of its true target. The USS Ronald Reagan appears therein as humanity’s last ship. An aircraft carrier. A ship of ghosts.
And what are the Comments about? Here’s the Plan:Draft MN State Rail Plan
Why does it take as long for media to pick up an explosion and long burning waste disposal site near Williston, ND as it does for a train derailment in Ontairo?
Here’s the poop on yesterday’s (3:20 a.m.) explosion in Williston:
KXNEWS, ND: Waste Disposal Ste near Williston Explodes
Bakken.com: Explosion razes waste disposal site near Alexandria , which has the most details:
A fire so massive that it could not be approached by firefighters erupted after an explosion at an oil waste disposal site north of Alexander, North Dakota. According to KXNews, McKenzie County Emergency Manager Karlin Rockvoy said the only thing to do at first was watch the fire burn itself out.
The explosion occurred at approximately 3:30 a.m. Emergency responders from both Williston and Alexander established a perimeter around the site to ensure the safety of anyone in the area. Five employees at the facility escaped unharmed, one of whom reported jumping out of the way just in time.
The complex, which undertook the treatment and disposal of oilfield waste, was completely destroyed during the incident. According to the Bismarck Tribune, Rockvoy reported that any damage caused by the explosion was contained by a surrounding embankment.
The waste disposal site was owned by Tervita, a company which specializes in dealing with industrial waste while focusing on environmentally conscious solutions. The facility was operated by Republic Services, which recently acquired Tervita, LLC, a subsidiary of Tervita Corporation. The merger heightened Republic Services’ presence in the oil and gas waste sector.
Bismarck Tribune: Explosion at oil and gas waste disposal site contained
Google this and find all of five media posts…
As if last month’s Bakken BOOM! derailment wasn’t enough, well, as of around 3 a.m. there was ANOTHER one in Ontario, this one just 37 km from the one a few weeks ago. Hwy 144 and Hwy 101 are closed. Local residents are told not to drink water.
From CP24, Toronto: Fire burning after train carrying crude oil derails in northern Ontario
“We have two exits in Gogama to get in and out of town and the bridge apparently is burned down,” Veronneau said. “So now we have one other exit, which is relatively close to where all of this is going on.”
… “My inn is about 200 feet from the train tracks and it’s a major concern for the people in town … If it had happened in the middle of town we wouldn’t be having a conversation right now because we would have gotten taken out. It would have been horrible being this close and the track runs right through the middle of Gogama.”
From The Star:CN train with crude oil derails, catches fire in northern Ontario
And from that article, reporting findings from the Ontario wreck and explosion a couple weeks ago stating that upgrading the rail cars is not enough:
The investigation into the first Gogama derailment is ongoing. In its Feb. 23 progress update, the TSB wrote that the Class 111 tank cars built to the CPC-1232 standard, which had been travelling at the speed of 38 mph (61 km/h) at the time of derailment, “performed similarly to those involved in the Lac-Mégantic accident which occurred at 65 mph (105 km/h).”
Washington Post: Train carrying crude oil derails in northern Ontario
At the February 11, 2015 meeting of the Silica Sand Advisory Panel, at least two of the agency speakers said they wanted comments on the rule drafts in 30 days or so, and that 30 days is almost up. BUT, it’s been hard to find those drafts, and it’s even harder to make comments on something not findable! They are not posted on the Advisory Panel site.
Also, I’ve heard several times that “the legislature will block these new rules” or some such, and I can’t get a read on what exactly is the concern, but the legislature isn’t going to block rulemaking because there’s nothing the legislature can do to block a rulemaking proceeding, it does not require legislative approval. Now they could change the law, and repeal the rulemaking requirement, but change the law?!?! That’s highly unlikely “they” could.
The deadline is extended to March 18 via an email from Nathan Cooley, MPCA:Dear Panel Members and Alternates, In addition to the reminder of a deadline to provide your input (which Heather asked me to extend from Friday 3/13 to Wednesday 3/18/2015), staff have asked me to forward working copies of preliminary draft working language in MS Word format to improve input convenience: Thanks! Sincerely, Nathan Brooks Cooley Rulemaking Coordinator 651-757-2290 v 651-297-8676 x
Big thanks to Nathan Cooley and Catherine Neuschler of the MPCA for being responsive and coughing up the drafts! Both PDFs and WORD are below, because track changes may be helpful:
PDF Draft Rules:
DNR Rule (pdf) Draft Silica Sand Reclamation Rule_2015_03_03
MPCA Air Emissions (pdf) 20141125 Draft Silica Sand Emission Rule (3)
MPCA Air Monitoring (pdf) EXHIBIT M
EQB Rule (pdf) Preliminary EQB_Draft Rules_ Definitions__2_19_2015
WORD Draft Rules (for track changes comments):
DNR Rule (docx) Draft Silica Sand Reclamation Rule_2015_03_03
MPCA Air Emissions (docx) 20141125 Draft Silica Sand Emission Rule (3)
MPCA Air Monitoring (docx) EXHIBIT M
EQB Rule (docx) Preliminary EQB_Draft Rules_ Definitions__2_19_2015
Have at it, folks, and get your comments to your Silica Sand Advisory Panel Representatives:Local government representatives
- Keith Fossen, Hay Creek Township
- Allen Frechette, Scott County
- Kristi Gross, Goodhue County and Minnesota Association of County Planning and Zoning Administrators
- Beth Proctor, Lime Township
- Lynn Schoen, City of Wabasha
- Jill Bathke, resident of Hennepin County (MCEA)
- Katie Himanga, resident of Lake City
- Jim McIlrath, resident of Goodhue County
- Vince Ready, resident of Winona County
- Kelley Stanage, resident of Houston County
- Doug Losee, Unimin Corp.
- Tom Rowekamp, IT Sands LLC
- Aaron Scott, Fairmount Minerals
- Brett Skilbred, Jordan Sands and Industrial Sand Council
- Mike Wallenius, Unimin Corp.
- Tara Wetzel, Mathy Construction and Aggregate and Ready Mix Association
Another BNSF Bakken oil BOOM! train has derailed and blown up. Evacuations are happening as I type within a 1 mile radius of the wreck. DOH! How much more of this will we have to take?
Access will be a problem on this one too, “had to access it by bike trail.” Great, just great… They couldn’t get to the source of the fire, and had to leave quickly for safety reasons, abandoning over $10k of equipment at the site. They’re going to “let it burn out.” Could be a while. EPA is on way from Chicago, BNSF crews from area. There’s some good video on the KWQC link way below. The oil is going down from the railroad grade, burning, and trees down there are on fire too, it’s a wooded area, and could go up in flames. It’s not directly on the river, but the river isn’t that far away.
Dubuque Telegraph Herald — UPDATE: Evacuations underway as railcars burn near Galena
Chicago Sun-Times: State agencies mobilize after crude oil train derails near Galena
Posted at Chicago Sun-Times:
Visible on the ski slope cameras: Live slope top cameras located at Chestnut Mountain Ski Resort. Dark now, but should be visible again tomorrow.
Two nuclear issues in today’s news, one at Prairie Island and one at Monticello.
Prairie Island in the Beagle:Prairie Island Unit 2 safely shut down; operators investigating fire alarm
And in the STrib:Fire alarm prompts unscheduled shutdown of Prairie Island nuclear unit
According to the utility, a fire alarm went off overnight in the Unit 2 containment building. While there was no indication of a fire, plant personnel are “taking conservative actions” and putting the unit out of service to investigate what happened, a statement from the Minneapolis-based utility said.
The notification indicates a potential reduction in the level of safety at the plant but no threat to public safety, the utility explained. Hoen said he was expecting more information about the shutdown later Thursday morning.
At Monticello, it seems there are recurring security problems, in the St. Cloud Times:Feds continue stepped-up oversight of Monticello plant
And in the STrib:Increased federal oversight at Monticello nuclear plant to continue after violation spotted
The St. Cloud Times (http://on.sctimes.com/1EQvPjM ) reports issues that led to the problem spotted in the last quarter of 2014 have been resolved. The improvements were found in two recent inspections, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory commission said.
Those improvements mean the commission won’t move the Monticello plant into a category of plants with the most serious performance issues, as the commission said would normally happen without changes.
Details of the violation were not released by the commission, but it called the problem a “greater than green” security finding. Green translates to an issue of very low safety significance and is the lowest rating on the commission’s color-coded scale.
And here’s the Forum view of the Senate Environment and Energy Committee hearing on repealing the nuclear moratorium — no mention whatsoever of Dr. Arjun Makhijani:Nuclear power moratorium debate returns By Don Davis Today at 1:00 p.m.
Nuclear plants near Red Wing and Monticello provide a significant amount of Minnesota’s electrical power. Their licenses to operate end in the early 2030s, and if a new plant were to be considered, planning would need to begin soon.
Since the last Minnesota nuclear power plant started in 1973 and the last coal plant began producing power in 1987, the state has added wind, natural gas and biomass power, Grant said. Now, he said, the state is well positioned to get electricity from more natural gas plants and Canadian hydroelectric facilities.
The issue returned to the Minnesota Legislature Tuesday for the first time since Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant was seriously damaged by a tsunami created by a major earthquake March 11, 2011. A bill that many thought would pass the Legislature that year ceased progress with the tsunami.
Chairman John Marty, D-Roseville, said he doubted that any bill coming out of his committee would overturn the moratorium, but he predicted that there would be attempts to amend an overall energy bill in his committee and the full Senate to strip the ban.
The Tribal Council’s statement said that the tribe is not opposed to nuclear energy, but any increase in generating capacity or storage of waste nuclear materials “is irresponsible without a long-term national solution for storing spent nuclear fuel.”
The federal government promised 32 years ago to establish a place to store nuclear waste, but that never materialized. So waste is stored in hardened casks near the Prairie Island and Monticello facilities.
After listening to his testimony today before Minnesota’s Senate Environment and Energy Committee…
Video (weird write up, omitted the most important witness!!!), see 10:06:
… we got another dose when Dr. Makhijani graced us with his presence at Fiesta Mexicana, with tales of Nuclear Waste Confidence that lit up every burn-up and zircaloy cladding wonk around the tables! It’s really depressing stuff, so it was better to discuss this dreadful and so unbelievable nuclear situation in a dedicated misery-loves-company group.
In his testimony, he’d brought up the dangers of moving forward with nuclear plans where there is “Construction Work in Progress” for utilities to recoup funds spent on construction long before it is in-service, if ever, as is happening with the Vogtle plant. So I took a stroll through our statutes, long familiar with our 2005 Construction Work in Progress give-away to Xcel on transmission, and found that, sure enough, it is an option for Minnesota utilities:
To the extent that construction work in progress is included in the rate base, the commission shall determine in its discretion whether and to what extent the income used in determining the actual return on the public utility property shall include an allowance for funds used during construction, considering the following factors:
Xcel did finally come out and admitted their support for removal of the nuclear moratorium. When considered in light of their e21_Initiative_Phase_I_Report_2014, there’s a trajectory that I see, and wish I didn’t: Xcel could build a new nuclear plant on the ratepayers dime and sell it on the market using their new transmission that we’re paying for, making Minnesota an electricity exporter!
Tonight, we discussed the Nuclear Waste Confidence decision, which is a “No-Confidence” decision, the word “confidence” has been removed from NRC lexicon. Well, there is that other meaning of “confidence” to consider…
So on that happy note, I’ll have mango margaroodie dreams about the Pt. Beach cask explosion and the current task of changing the seals on those 20 year old TN-40 casks!
Here’s Dr. Arjun Makhijani’s Powerpoint from this afternoon:
12 noon! Nuclear Senate bills! Tune in to the Senate Webcast – Environment and Energy Committee
12 p.m. – Live Senate Environment and Energy Committee
S.F. 306 (Kiffmeyer) Nuclear power plant certificate of need issuance prohibition elimination (for discussion only and consideration for possible inclusion in omnibus energy bill).
S.F. 536 (Anderson, B.) Monticello new nuclear-powered electric generating unit construction authorization (for discussion only and consideration for possible inclusion in omnibus energy bill).
That’s “our” reactor, the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, here in Red Wing, it’s within the city limits (which were expanded to include the plant). I represented Florence Township from 1995, when Xcel, f/k/a NSP, applied to put nuclear waste in Florence Township under the “alternate site mandate,” and that went on, and on, and on, until they finally withdrew their application at the NRC in … what, 1999? 2000? That’s one I thought would never end. But that’s the thing about nuclear, it’s never over.
QUICK — CONTACT THE LEGISLATORS AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS MISSIVE.
There are two bills before the Senate Environment and Energy Committee TOMORROW:
- SF306 is simply worded, deleting the Minn. Stat. 216.243, Subd. 3b prohibition of new construction of a nuclear plant and changes it to “Additional storage of spent nuclear fuel” and over the previous language that states: “Any certificate of need for additional storage of spent nuclear fuel for a facility seeking a license extension shall address the impacts of continued operations over the period for which approval is sought.” It’s authored by Kiffmeyer, coauthored by Dahms and Anderson.
- SF0536 is even worse, authored by Anderson only (see also HF338 sponsored by O’Neill ; Newberger ; Garofalo ; Howe ; Baker ; McDonald ; Nornes). SF0536 lists only Anderson as an author, and, well, “Let’s build a nuclear plant!” Here’s the language:
Authors contact info is linked above, and emails for Senate Energy committee members and the authors are also listed below.
Whether it’s targeted as a replacement for the Fukushima Daiichi style GE plant, or whether it’s to add and operate a second reactor, WHY?
First, there’s no need. There is a glut of electricity, as our friend, Xcel’s Ben Fowkes said, when they could no longer keep up the GROW GROW GROW fiction. Here’s the Seeking Alpha transcript of the XEL Earnings Call, January 31, 2013.
So I think the economies are in decent shape across all our jurisdictions. Doesn’t necessarily mean it translates to high sales growth. And that’s consistent with our forecast. I mean, we’re not anticipating that we’re going to see a tremendous rebound in sales, even as the economies start to improve. I mean, I think, that’s our new normal, frankly.
For last year:
From Xcel’s IRP (Docket 15-21), p. 45 of 102:
We forecast a period of relatively flat growth such that our median base peak will increase only 0.4 percent in each year of the planning period…
That chart is NOT consistent with the 2014 SEC 10K filing, which shows a 2014 peak demand of 8,848 MW (info below is linked, see p. 9 at 10-K link):Capacity and Demand Uninterrupted system peak demand for the NSP System’s electric utility for each of the last three years and the forecast for 2015, assuming normal weather, is listed below. System Peak Demand (in MW) 2012 2013 2014 2015 Forecast NSP System 9,475 9,524 8,848 9,301
That lower number is consistent with the downward trend of the 2014 NERC Long Term Reliability Assessment, now showing growth rates at lowest levels on record (note that it has NEVER been close to the CapX 2020 “forecast” of 2.49% annually):
And here’s the picture for MISO from the 2014 NERC Long Term Reliability Assessment:
2014 NERC Long Term Reliability Assessment, p. 38 (or p. 46 of 115 pdf).
Also from the 2014 SEC 10-K link:
So we don’t “need” it, there’s no talk of a new nuclear plant in their recently filed IRP. So why???
And the “WHY?” may be clearer when taken into context with last week’s hearing at House Energy, where the intent, in part, behind legislation there was to make Minnesota an exporter of energy. Again, WHY? Why make the state an exporter of energy? And if we do what would that do for our rates here? How does that fit with Xcel’s well funded plan to institute its e21 Initiative, and how does that fit with Xcel’s desire to use ratepayer money to find other market options? The House bill would let natural gas plants be built without a Certificate of Need, whether by an IPP or regulated utility, with the key being that they are selling into the MISO grid, and not for Minnesota native load.
But nuclear is SO expensive! First, there’s an immediate example of nuclear construction cost overruns right here in Minnesota, at the Monticello nuclear plant, where they went way beyond what was approved in the Certificate of Need:Xcel management blamed for cost overruns at Monticello
So what was that about? Costs more than doubled, increased by a factor of 2.33!!! From the article:
The project to extend the plant’s life and increase power output ballooned from an estimated $320 million in 2008 to $665 million when it was completed last year. However, the final price tag likely will rise to $748 million, including construction-in-progress financial costs.
And let’s look at new construction, the first new nuclear plant in the US in 30 years:
The cost punchline on the Vogtle plant? Southern, Westinghouse and CB&I are already in court over previous cost overruns on the project, which is currently expected to cost $14.5 billion.
Here’s that other project:Shaw Power Group, Westinghouse, face cost issues at S.C. project.
The cost punch line here? The NRC is expected to act soon on the Summer license. Summer is projected to cost about $9 billion.
Building new plants? Well, NEI has some info, BUT it’s outdated, nuclear has not caught up, and this is the most current I can find on the site (HERE’S THE WHOLE REPORT):
- There is no need.
- They cost so much that it’s unreasonable to even consider, and is the definition of imprudent!
Why are Reps. Kiffmeyer and Anderson trying to make this a possibility? Is this for real? Is it a diversion from some other issue?
CONTACT INFO FOR LEGISLATORS:
To contact the Senate Energy and Environment Committee, go to COMMITTEE LINK, because many MN Senators have form access, not direct emails. Boo-hiss… Here are the emails listed, but go to link to see the buttons for the Senators with form access only:
email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com