BVCC INVESTIGATION REPORT
Who Changed The Rules?
PART ONE
PART ONE
BVCC received the following question from citizen [Tom G.] inquiring as to: "How, why, and where was a "renewable energy percentage of transmission mandate" removed from a previously approved Certificate Of Need (CON)? BVCC thought this question was important and initiated an investigation. BVCC contacted Legalectric and the Overland Law Office, located in Red Wing, Minnesota, and asked for some clarification. What we found was very interesting, and makes for a great point of discussion. Especially for those in Wisconsin who have been assured (by current special interest marketing campaigns) that the proposed Wisconsin CapX2020 high voltage line and the proposed ATC-Badger Coulee high voltage line projects will deliver "potential" green wind energy, thus suppressing any potential anti-coal allies. Of other importance, in this questionable ruling by the Minnesota Public Utility Commission (PUC), were requests made by opponents asking for new "Evidentiary Proceedings" (presenting new data to show electrical consumption had declined, thereby reducing the application's need) which were denied. Here is what Legalectric and the Overland Law Office reported.
---------- BEGINNING OF QUOTE ----------
The "Wind Conditions" are Order Point 3 (A-D) in the “FINAL ORDER” attached, the earlier orders, prior to modification, are in the “Order Granting…” document. Xcel’s argument is in the “Applicant’s Reply to Petitions…” document.
Short story: There was a condition proposed, and the Public Utility commission (PUC) adopted it. At the “Motion for Reconsideration” stage, the Minnesota Office of Energy Security (MOES) wanted to modify it and Xcel Energy wanted to remove it, but PUC reconsidered, modified it, and left it in.
(3). The Commission hereby grants Applicants' request for Certificates Of Need for the Up Sized Alternatives for each of the proposed 345 kV transmission projects. The Commission grants a Certificate Of Need for the Brookings Project provided that they comply with the following conditions to the extent possible:
A. Applicants shall sign power purchase agreements (PPAs) or commit to utility-owned renewable generation projects within the time frame of Minn. Stat. § 216B.1691, coordinated with the proposed in-service dates of each segment of the Brookings Project.
B. Applicants shall submit network (firm) transmission service requests to the Open Access Same Time Information System of the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (MISO), for the total amount of new capacity enabled by this line to attempt, to the extent lawfully possible, to try to achieve full subscription of the capacity for renewable generation.
C. Applicants shall make a compliance filing within 30 days of obtaining the Certificates Of Need, detailing the allocation of the new transmission capacity among owners. The compliance filing shall address how much capacity will be enabled by this transmission line; the allocation of the capacity among Applicants; and the type of MISO transmission service. Applicants will seek to serve the renewable generated electricity to be carried on this line, recognizing that MISO allocation and restriction of MISO managed transmission capacity is beyond the scope and authority of this Commission.
D. As necessary to comply with condition A., Applicants shall designate the new, renewable commitments as Network Resources pursuant to MISO's federal Transmission & Energy Markets Tariff, and seek the designation as soon as permitted under the MISO rules, but no later than 10 days after the Commission approves the PPAs or commitments,
E. Applicants shall report to the Commission any changes at MISO or the federal level that could affect these conditions.
What’s important here is that:
It’s ONLY for the Brookings line and has nothing to do with Hampton - La Crosse. The Applicants have NEVER claimed that this LaX line is for wind (in Certificate Of Need or any Routing Proceeding Application or testimony). Xcel Energy is on record on that in the RUS hearings, "no, it’s not for wind." And in each routing proceeding in the testimony in the Evidentiary Hearing.
---------- END OF QUOTE ----------
Take a deep breath here and refocus citizens. This is the "real-speak" that goes on behind closed doors when only the insiders are watching, or hearing, except for a few of us locals who follow this closely! Here are several "non-legal" opinion points BVCC would like to make:
(1) Simply put, the answer to the original question from citizen [Tom G.] is that there was an attempt (filed 30 days after receiving its Original Certificate Of Need) by the Certificate Of Need holder to remove all of the PUC "Wind Conditions" and renewable energy mandates contained within the PUC's "Original Order" (the ruling in favor of the applicants Original Certificate Of Need Application). However, the PUC did not grant all of the applicants modification requests. Yet, if one carefully examines the complicated and additional revised language (used in the PUC "Final Order)," there appear gray areas left to interpretation, and future court proceedings could follow, which visit this issue again. Of special interest is the removal of the previous PUC ruling language, specifying the broad Certificate Of Need project coverage phrase "this transmission line," (meaning the three total projects included within the Original Certificate Of Need, (including the "Brookings Project", the "La Crosse Project" and the "Fargo Project)." In its place the PUC inserted a much more limited scope requiring only the "Brookings Project" alone to meet the revised "Final Order," (regarding renewable and "Wind" energy mandated quotas), with provisional reasons for non-compliance. That, in itself, was a big sea change from the applications PUC's "Original Order." Did the Certificate Of Need holder get all the modifications they wanted? No! Did the holder get significant modifications? Yes! Maybe the phrase, "its not set in concrete," would be fitting here?
(2) Two of the five appointed Minnesota Public Utility Commissioners (PUC) [Thomas Pugh and Phyllis A. Reha], who issued the Original "Order Granting Certificates Of Need With Conditions" [50 page legal document], were asked by NoCapX2020 lawyers (prior to the PUC hearing decision on this matter) to recuse (remove) themselves from this application due to their prior activities (regarding the content of their previous speeches and attendance at public and private special interest events) that had the "appearance of impropriety." Both Commissioner Pugh and Reha declined that recusal request.
(3) Energy policy making decisions at the Public Service Commission level in Wisconsin (as in Minnesota) are not an easy read for most citizens, and special legal expertise is required before you can play in that "sand box." Its "hard ball," not "softball." BVCC is strongly encouraging public elected officials (and citizens alike) to demand that ATC provide the public with all of the ATC-BC need and study data requested of it, now (during the Public Information Phase of its ATC-BC Application). Once the ATC-BC proposal leaves the public domain, special interests will put on their "big-shoes" and go "step-in."
(4) Current electric energy generation and transmission technologies cannot (to the best of our knowledge) guarantee (or specify a consistent amount of) any measurable reliable level of green wind (or other renewable energy source) delivered on any given high voltage - high capacity transmission line, unless all other generation facilities (on any given grid) are shut down (or taken off the grid supply), leaving only the green generation source as the sole energy provider. Given the nature of grid reliance on generation capacity for unscheduled peak loads (or peak demand reserves) this off-line scenario is almost certainly never going to occur, under normal conditions. So, if someone say its "clean if its green" look again. The "green" color you are promised may be more like "black", the color of coal. This is not to say that (green) is not good. To the contrary, (green, and all like energy colors in that spectrum) are great, and need to be tripled by 2015. We need more "green" in our electric soup. We just need to know what were buying when we walk down that soup isle. When you hear the words "potential renewable energy," turn the lights on, and take a close "look-see." There just might be a uninvited bug floating on the top of your soup bowel.
(5) We at BVCC hope this "Part One" of our investigation provides you with some useful information. But, were not finish yet. BVCC will make a request (of the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin) to inform BVCC of whether it is possible to modify the stipulated conditions of a previously approved Public Service Commission (PSC) Utility Application Ruling in Wisconsin? And, if so, how many times has this type of "Motion For Reconsideration" occurred in Wisconsin's PSC history? We will also contact another prominent legal firm in Wisconsin to ask them the same question. We will let you know the results in "Part Two" of this investigation.
Send us an email and let us know what you think?
We are always looking for your good questions and inside information from trusted sources. A pdf of the above PUC decisions and the applicants motions are available by request.
Contact us at: buckwheatvalley@mwt.net
