More Resources

Security Clearance Terminations and Badge Retrieval at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Docket No. EO-05-01. In the above referenced order, responding to the D.C. Public Service Commission’s petition, several inaccurate statements relating to environmental issues compel attention and correction.

Docket No. EO-05-01. In the above referenced order, responding to the D.C. Public Service Commission’s petition, several inaccurate statements relating to environmental issues compel attention and correction.

Order authorizing Northern States Power to export electric energy to Canada

Docket No. EO-05-01. Order No. 202-05-03: Pursuant to Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act, 16 USC §824a(c), Section 301(b) of the Department of Energy Organization Act, 42 USC §7151(b), and Order No. 202-05-3, issued by the Department of Energy ("DOE" or the "Department") on December 20,2005 ("Order"), Mirant Potomac River, LLC ("Mirant") hereby submits the following Supplement Number 2 to the Operating Plan submitted to the Department on December 30, 2005 (the "Operating Plan") in response to the Order.

Docket No. EO-05-01: Trona injection tests were conducted at Mirant’s Potomac River Station on Unit 1 between November 12 and December 23, 2005. The purpose of these tests was to determine the capability of dry injection of trona to achieve substantial SO2 removal from the stack discharge, and the determination of other operating impacts from he trona injection, if any.

Docket No. EO-05-01. Order No. 202-05-03: Pursuant to Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act, 16 USC §824a(c), Section 301(b) of the Department of Energy Organization Act, 42 USC §7151(b), and Order No. 202-05-3, issued by the Department of Energy ...

Docket No. EO-05-01: Trona injection tests were conducted at Mirant’s Potomac River Station on Unit 1 between November 12 and December 23, 2005. The purpose of these tests was to determine the capability of dry injection of trona to achieve substanti...

Docket No. EO-05-01. In summary, PJM understands the difficulty facing the Department in having to balance the important conflicting interests presented here. However, PJM does not regard Option A as anywhere close to striking the correct balance. The improvement offered by Option B reduces the reliability risks by leaving less potential load uncovered in the event of an emergency and in lessening the call time should it be necessary to dispatch idled units at Potomac River to cover such load. Option B, however, is not an operating state that PJM would accept for any length of time under normal circumstances. As is true for both the Department and PEPCO, PJM expects Mirant will return with a further refinement of its proposed operating plan that offers greater reliability protection for the District of Columbia. In this event, PJM requests that it be permitted to reserve the right to comment further on any such additional filing that Mirant may make.