<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: CA ratepayers fleeced for green power line in Canada	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://calwatchdog.com/2013/07/02/ca-ratepayers-fleeced-for-green-power-line-in-canada/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://calwatchdog.com/2013/07/02/ca-ratepayers-fleeced-for-green-power-line-in-canada/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Feb 2015 15:28:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Jeff		</title>
		<link>https://calwatchdog.com/2013/07/02/ca-ratepayers-fleeced-for-green-power-line-in-canada/#comment-110106</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jeff]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Feb 2015 15:28:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.calwatchdog.com/?p=45138#comment-110106</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[California purchases power from outside of California, from a wide variety of producers who pass along the cost of capital infrastructure development and operations. 

Just as California does for it&#039;s exports.

Feel free to isolate California from the rest of the world.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>California purchases power from outside of California, from a wide variety of producers who pass along the cost of capital infrastructure development and operations. </p>
<p>Just as California does for it&#8217;s exports.</p>
<p>Feel free to isolate California from the rest of the world.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Mark		</title>
		<link>https://calwatchdog.com/2013/07/02/ca-ratepayers-fleeced-for-green-power-line-in-canada/#comment-12985</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mark]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Jul 2013 13:37:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.calwatchdog.com/?p=45138#comment-12985</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Wayne, 

One detail that doesn&#039;t get much attention is how the Time of Delivery (TOD) factors, that are built into the PPA&#039;s that PG&#038;E, SCE, etc. have entered into to meet the 33%RES, affects generation costs at super peak times. 
http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/WORD_PDF/FINAL_RESOLUTION/154753.PDF   


The 2011 Market Price Referent price has gone down since I have been following the market for RE (2008).  On the other hand the TOD premium has gone up.   The Super Peak Time of Delivery factor for 2008 contracts with PG&#038;E was 2.01 for the June-Sept time frame.  The December 1, 2011 Resolution, linked above,  indicates that the TOD factor for the same time period has increased to 2.38.  

PG&#038;E is paying the utility scale PV investors over $.20 kWh for generation at super peak times before they have to pay for the new transmission infrastructure and allocate costs for distribution and back up power services.  It&#039;s a tad misleading to talk about the Market Price Referent dropping for PV without noting the premiums being paid to secure RE via the TOD factors.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wayne, </p>
<p>One detail that doesn&#8217;t get much attention is how the Time of Delivery (TOD) factors, that are built into the PPA&#8217;s that PG&amp;E, SCE, etc. have entered into to meet the 33%RES, affects generation costs at super peak times.<br />
<a href="http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/WORD_PDF/FINAL_RESOLUTION/154753.PDF" rel="nofollow ugc">http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/WORD_PDF/FINAL_RESOLUTION/154753.PDF</a>   </p>
<p>The 2011 Market Price Referent price has gone down since I have been following the market for RE (2008).  On the other hand the TOD premium has gone up.   The Super Peak Time of Delivery factor for 2008 contracts with PG&amp;E was 2.01 for the June-Sept time frame.  The December 1, 2011 Resolution, linked above,  indicates that the TOD factor for the same time period has increased to 2.38.  </p>
<p>PG&amp;E is paying the utility scale PV investors over $.20 kWh for generation at super peak times before they have to pay for the new transmission infrastructure and allocate costs for distribution and back up power services.  It&#8217;s a tad misleading to talk about the Market Price Referent dropping for PV without noting the premiums being paid to secure RE via the TOD factors.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Wayne Lusvardi		</title>
		<link>https://calwatchdog.com/2013/07/02/ca-ratepayers-fleeced-for-green-power-line-in-canada/#comment-12984</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Wayne Lusvardi]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Jul 2013 02:47:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.calwatchdog.com/?p=45138#comment-12984</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[What Mr. Wilkerson&#039;s comment above left out is apparently WAPA served as intermediary to structure a loan of U.S. Federal Stimulus funds to the Montana-Alberta Tie Line project.  So the loan funds came from all U.S. taxpayers not solely Central Valley electric ratepayers, but also including all California taxpayers.  So Californians did finance a share of the $161 million loan to the Montana - Alberta Tie Line contrary to Mr. Wilkerson&#039;s statement. 

Link here: http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/OAS-RA-12-01.pdf]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What Mr. Wilkerson&#8217;s comment above left out is apparently WAPA served as intermediary to structure a loan of U.S. Federal Stimulus funds to the Montana-Alberta Tie Line project.  So the loan funds came from all U.S. taxpayers not solely Central Valley electric ratepayers, but also including all California taxpayers.  So Californians did finance a share of the $161 million loan to the Montana &#8211; Alberta Tie Line contrary to Mr. Wilkerson&#8217;s statement. </p>
<p>Link here: <a href="http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/OAS-RA-12-01.pdf" rel="nofollow ugc">http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/OAS-RA-12-01.pdf</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Wayne Lusvardi		</title>
		<link>https://calwatchdog.com/2013/07/02/ca-ratepayers-fleeced-for-green-power-line-in-canada/#comment-12983</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Wayne Lusvardi]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Jul 2013 02:35:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.calwatchdog.com/?p=45138#comment-12983</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[There are inconsistent statements all over the internet contradicting Mr. Wilkerson&#039;s statement above that WAPA did not loan any funds to the Montana Alberta Tie Line.  

On August 27, 2012, it was publicly reported that Enbridge repaid a $161 million loan from the Western Area Power Administration for the Montana Alberta Tie Line (MATL).  

Link here: http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/enbridge-repays-us-federal-transmission-infrastructure-program-loan-on-montana-alberta-tsx-enb-1694654.htm]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There are inconsistent statements all over the internet contradicting Mr. Wilkerson&#8217;s statement above that WAPA did not loan any funds to the Montana Alberta Tie Line.  </p>
<p>On August 27, 2012, it was publicly reported that Enbridge repaid a $161 million loan from the Western Area Power Administration for the Montana Alberta Tie Line (MATL).  </p>
<p>Link here: <a href="http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/enbridge-repays-us-federal-transmission-infrastructure-program-loan-on-montana-alberta-tsx-enb-1694654.htm" rel="nofollow ugc">http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/enbridge-repays-us-federal-transmission-infrastructure-program-loan-on-montana-alberta-tsx-enb-1694654.htm</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Wayne Lusvardi		</title>
		<link>https://calwatchdog.com/2013/07/02/ca-ratepayers-fleeced-for-green-power-line-in-canada/#comment-12982</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Wayne Lusvardi]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Jul 2013 02:28:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.calwatchdog.com/?p=45138#comment-12982</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[IN THE ONLINE PUBLICATION PLATTS ENERGY WEEK FOR SEPT. 19, 2011, RANDLY WILKERSON OF WAPA APPEARS TO BE QUOTED AS SAYING THAT WAPA LOANED $161 MILLION TO THE MONTANA-ALBERTA TIE LINE.  SEE QUOTE BELOW:

WAPA has funded three projects under the loan authority that would not be affected because they are &quot;grandfathered&quot; under the legislation, WAPA spokesman Randy Wilkerson said Friday. They are the TransWest Express Transmission Project ($25 million), the Montana Alberta Tie Line that is being built from Lethbridge, Alberta to Great Falls, Montana ($161 million), and Electrical District 5 - Palo Verde Hub in Arizona ($91 million).

LINK: http://www.wusa9.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=167592]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>IN THE ONLINE PUBLICATION PLATTS ENERGY WEEK FOR SEPT. 19, 2011, RANDLY WILKERSON OF WAPA APPEARS TO BE QUOTED AS SAYING THAT WAPA LOANED $161 MILLION TO THE MONTANA-ALBERTA TIE LINE.  SEE QUOTE BELOW:</p>
<p>WAPA has funded three projects under the loan authority that would not be affected because they are &#8220;grandfathered&#8221; under the legislation, WAPA spokesman Randy Wilkerson said Friday. They are the TransWest Express Transmission Project ($25 million), the Montana Alberta Tie Line that is being built from Lethbridge, Alberta to Great Falls, Montana ($161 million), and Electrical District 5 &#8211; Palo Verde Hub in Arizona ($91 million).</p>
<p>LINK: <a href="http://www.wusa9.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=167592" rel="nofollow ugc">http://www.wusa9.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=167592</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Ulysses Uhaul		</title>
		<link>https://calwatchdog.com/2013/07/02/ca-ratepayers-fleeced-for-green-power-line-in-canada/#comment-12981</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ulysses Uhaul]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Jul 2013 01:47:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.calwatchdog.com/?p=45138#comment-12981</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Do not fight your future...a futile exercise...elections seem to never go your way for some reason.....hmmmm.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Do not fight your future&#8230;a futile exercise&#8230;elections seem to never go your way for some reason&#8230;..hmmmm.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Wayne Lusvardi		</title>
		<link>https://calwatchdog.com/2013/07/02/ca-ratepayers-fleeced-for-green-power-line-in-canada/#comment-12980</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Wayne Lusvardi]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Jul 2013 21:26:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.calwatchdog.com/?p=45138#comment-12980</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Mark
Thank you for your note. 

When wind and solar farm operators and the California Public Utilities Commission cite the falling cost of green power they leave out the mounting cost of new transmission lines and newer regulating facilities needed to balance the grid to prevent spontaneous and mysterious blackouts. 

Do we have a definitive answer yet what caused the San Diego blackout in 2011 yet? Nope.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mark<br />
Thank you for your note. </p>
<p>When wind and solar farm operators and the California Public Utilities Commission cite the falling cost of green power they leave out the mounting cost of new transmission lines and newer regulating facilities needed to balance the grid to prevent spontaneous and mysterious blackouts. </p>
<p>Do we have a definitive answer yet what caused the San Diego blackout in 2011 yet? Nope.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Randy Wilkerson - Western Area Power Administration		</title>
		<link>https://calwatchdog.com/2013/07/02/ca-ratepayers-fleeced-for-green-power-line-in-canada/#comment-12979</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Randy Wilkerson - Western Area Power Administration]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Jul 2013 21:07:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.calwatchdog.com/?p=45138#comment-12979</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[This story contains a number of factual errors that I would like to correct. Western Area Power Administration (www.wapa.gov) sells long term firm electric power to public, municipal and other not-for-profit power companies. 

Western sells and transmits power generated at 14 different multipurpose water resource projects throughout the West, organized into 10 independently managed and financed rate-setting systems.  (http://ww2.wapa.gov/sites/Western/about/Pages/default.aspx) 

Since rates are calculated independently for each project to ensure the rate recovers all costs associated with that project, and only that project, California rate payers only pay for costs associated with the Central Valley Project and the Washoe Project. 

This brings us to the crux of the misconceptions in the article. Western provided initial financing for the Montana Alberta Tie Ltd. Project through its Transmission Infrastructure Program (http://ww2.wapa.gov/sites/western/recovery/Pages/default.aspx), using money available to it from the U.S. Treasury.  MATL was also financed as a separate and distinct project from the hydropower projects.  In the initial plan, Western would repay the U.S. Treasury using revenue generated by selling capacity, or space, on the transmission line to local utilites in Alberta and Montana.  However, Western’s share in the project was bought out by developer Enbridge, who repaid, in full, Western’s financing for MATL.  We have since returned the funds to the U.S. Treasury.  In other words, California rate payers did not pay any of the costs associated with the Montana Alberta Tie Ltd. Project.

The section on the &quot;Montana to Alberta Tie Line&quot; talks about a &quot;mandate&quot; (FERC Order 1000) imposed on Western to finance the MATL Project. There was no mandate to finance the MATL Project.  The project applied for financing through Western’s Transmission Infrastructure Program, which is authorized to borrow up to  $3.25 billion from the U.S. Treasury to finance the development of transmission projects that helps deliver renewable energy to market across the West.  The MATL Project was selected because it met all the criteria for financing.

FERC Order No. 1000 requires regional transmission planning and cost allocation to all utilities under its jurisdiction in the nation.

Regarding the discussion of San Diego Gas &#038; Electric&#039;s investment in the Rim Rock Wind Farm, San Diego Gas &#038; Electric has received benefits from its investment.  It would be appropriate to talk with them.

To conclude, California ratepayers did not pay for the MATL line.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This story contains a number of factual errors that I would like to correct. Western Area Power Administration (www.wapa.gov) sells long term firm electric power to public, municipal and other not-for-profit power companies. </p>
<p>Western sells and transmits power generated at 14 different multipurpose water resource projects throughout the West, organized into 10 independently managed and financed rate-setting systems.  (<a href="http://ww2.wapa.gov/sites/Western/about/Pages/default.aspx" rel="nofollow ugc">http://ww2.wapa.gov/sites/Western/about/Pages/default.aspx</a>) </p>
<p>Since rates are calculated independently for each project to ensure the rate recovers all costs associated with that project, and only that project, California rate payers only pay for costs associated with the Central Valley Project and the Washoe Project. </p>
<p>This brings us to the crux of the misconceptions in the article. Western provided initial financing for the Montana Alberta Tie Ltd. Project through its Transmission Infrastructure Program (<a href="http://ww2.wapa.gov/sites/western/recovery/Pages/default.aspx" rel="nofollow ugc">http://ww2.wapa.gov/sites/western/recovery/Pages/default.aspx</a>), using money available to it from the U.S. Treasury.  MATL was also financed as a separate and distinct project from the hydropower projects.  In the initial plan, Western would repay the U.S. Treasury using revenue generated by selling capacity, or space, on the transmission line to local utilites in Alberta and Montana.  However, Western’s share in the project was bought out by developer Enbridge, who repaid, in full, Western’s financing for MATL.  We have since returned the funds to the U.S. Treasury.  In other words, California rate payers did not pay any of the costs associated with the Montana Alberta Tie Ltd. Project.</p>
<p>The section on the &#8220;Montana to Alberta Tie Line&#8221; talks about a &#8220;mandate&#8221; (FERC Order 1000) imposed on Western to finance the MATL Project. There was no mandate to finance the MATL Project.  The project applied for financing through Western’s Transmission Infrastructure Program, which is authorized to borrow up to  $3.25 billion from the U.S. Treasury to finance the development of transmission projects that helps deliver renewable energy to market across the West.  The MATL Project was selected because it met all the criteria for financing.</p>
<p>FERC Order No. 1000 requires regional transmission planning and cost allocation to all utilities under its jurisdiction in the nation.</p>
<p>Regarding the discussion of San Diego Gas &amp; Electric&#8217;s investment in the Rim Rock Wind Farm, San Diego Gas &amp; Electric has received benefits from its investment.  It would be appropriate to talk with them.</p>
<p>To conclude, California ratepayers did not pay for the MATL line.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Mark		</title>
		<link>https://calwatchdog.com/2013/07/02/ca-ratepayers-fleeced-for-green-power-line-in-canada/#comment-12977</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mark]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Jul 2013 14:03:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.calwatchdog.com/?p=45138#comment-12977</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Thanks for the post Wayne! 
I came across a post recently discussing who ends up paying for infrastructure upgrades to meet the 33%RES.   I noted a few comments you might find of interest: 

1)	“These facilities include the Whirlwind Substation, Colorado River
Substation expansion, West of Devers Project, South of Kramer Project, Lugo-Pisgah
Transmission Project, Red Bluff Substation, and the Eldorado-Ivanpah Transmission
5 Project. The final total of these facilities is not determined but will certainly amount to
the billions of dollars of new transmission, and accounts for most of the new transmission being developed to interconnect renewable resources. All of this cost, along with the risk of abandoned plant or stranded assets, is being borne by the consumer.


2)	“The Commission should take away at least two points from the May 14th Workshop. First, transmission costs are increasing at a staggering pace, and no longer represent a de minimis portion of the overall electric bill.”

http://www.energy.ca.gov/2012_energypolicy/documents/2012-05-14_workshop/comments/2012-05-31_Post_Workshop_Comments_of_the_California_Municipal_Utilities_Association_TN-65532.pdf]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the post Wayne!<br />
I came across a post recently discussing who ends up paying for infrastructure upgrades to meet the 33%RES.   I noted a few comments you might find of interest: </p>
<p>1)	“These facilities include the Whirlwind Substation, Colorado River<br />
Substation expansion, West of Devers Project, South of Kramer Project, Lugo-Pisgah<br />
Transmission Project, Red Bluff Substation, and the Eldorado-Ivanpah Transmission<br />
5 Project. The final total of these facilities is not determined but will certainly amount to<br />
the billions of dollars of new transmission, and accounts for most of the new transmission being developed to interconnect renewable resources. All of this cost, along with the risk of abandoned plant or stranded assets, is being borne by the consumer.</p>
<p>2)	“The Commission should take away at least two points from the May 14th Workshop. First, transmission costs are increasing at a staggering pace, and no longer represent a de minimis portion of the overall electric bill.”</p>
<p><a href="http://www.energy.ca.gov/2012_energypolicy/documents/2012-05-14_workshop/comments/2012-05-31_Post_Workshop_Comments_of_the_California_Municipal_Utilities_Association_TN-65532.pdf" rel="nofollow ugc">http://www.energy.ca.gov/2012_energypolicy/documents/2012-05-14_workshop/comments/2012-05-31_Post_Workshop_Comments_of_the_California_Municipal_Utilities_Association_TN-65532.pdf</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Wayne Lusvardi		</title>
		<link>https://calwatchdog.com/2013/07/02/ca-ratepayers-fleeced-for-green-power-line-in-canada/#comment-12976</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Wayne Lusvardi]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Jul 2013 05:34:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.calwatchdog.com/?p=45138#comment-12976</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[FYI, dirty power plants were banished from California when the U.S. EPA in 1996 gave the state an ultimatum to clean the air or face a cut off of Federal funds by 2001.  So in 2001, California shut down old coastal polluting power plants but imported dirty power from other states. So no one that I am award of is for returning to the &quot;good old days&quot; or terrible Los Angeles smog.  

But natural gas power plants are two thirds less polluting than coal fired power plants. Green power is clean but does not eliminate the need for gas fired backup up power plants. So trading a third as much air pollution for green power that still has about a third of the air pollution because it needs gas fired backup power plants isn&#039;t much of an environmental or economic gain. 

Those who live in glass housed windmills shouldn&#039;t throw stones.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>FYI, dirty power plants were banished from California when the U.S. EPA in 1996 gave the state an ultimatum to clean the air or face a cut off of Federal funds by 2001.  So in 2001, California shut down old coastal polluting power plants but imported dirty power from other states. So no one that I am award of is for returning to the &#8220;good old days&#8221; or terrible Los Angeles smog.  </p>
<p>But natural gas power plants are two thirds less polluting than coal fired power plants. Green power is clean but does not eliminate the need for gas fired backup up power plants. So trading a third as much air pollution for green power that still has about a third of the air pollution because it needs gas fired backup power plants isn&#8217;t much of an environmental or economic gain. </p>
<p>Those who live in glass housed windmills shouldn&#8217;t throw stones.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!--
Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: https://www.boldgrid.com/w3-total-cache/


Served from: calwatchdog.com @ 2026-04-19 18:38:31 by W3 Total Cache
-->