April 27th, 2015
The long awaited moment has arrived — the substantive review by DOE of the Plains & Eastern UnClean Line is now public. Remember, there are NO RULES, this is uncharted territory, they’ve not done anything like this before!
There’s a lot of stuff here — this is cut and pasted from the DOE SITE, and downloading will take a while:
Plains & Eastern Clean Line Transmission Line – Part 2 Application
April 26th, 2015
Bill Howley died yesterday.
Bill Howley is known by anyone working in opposition to transmission projects. Due to a transmission line proposed in his community, he learned pretty much everything there is to know about transmission, wrote about it faithfully and fearlessly for years, and became an expert on advocacy, economics and technology of all things electrical. He’s one of the first resources people would turn to when they first learned of transmission projects. Recently, he’d taken the position of Program Director for WV SUN.
Bill Howley’s blog, since 2008 — take a few minutes to get an idea of the depth of his work. Here’s hoping that his family will keep this blog going in perpetuity, a memorial to his work and as a guiding light for all those who are dealing with transmission projects:
From the Hur Herald from Sunny Cal:
April 23rd, 2015
The price of Garofalo is too cheap — toadying to the corporate masters.
Rep. Garofalo claimed it is not the legislature’s role to interfere in private contracts. But in taking out the language specific to Black Oak/Getty wind, he adds this tidbit, it supposedly was added in committee “during markup” — did anyone on the committee understand? Did anyone look at this footnote to Minn. Stat. 500.30? It’s in the 2nd Engrossment, then 3rd, and 4th which was passed yesterday with some amendments:
This is language that modifies a footnote to Minn. Stat. 500.30. It pushes up the sunset of the 7 year limit for wind easement contracts. And there’s nothing in here that says that it does not apply to current contracts. Geronimo wants it because it WOULD apply, at least they’d try to make that happen!
Nope, this is not OK at all. That’s just doing the corporation’s bidding in another way. Thanks, thanks a lot. If you want to keep this language in, it needs to expressly state that it has no application to existing contracts.
I wonder — did Sempra know they were jumping into this morass when they bought the project?
Now it’s time to keep on Senate to remove it, and be alert for the Conference Committee.
Here’s the contact info for all Senators, it will hit the floor sometime, either in SF 1431 or maybe even SF 2101:
1) We need to make sure that the Senate, THE WHOLE SENATE, knows that the special legislation for Geronimo in S.F. 1431, p. 34, lines 8-16, must be deleted when this comes to the floor in the Senate, if not before. Check that bill carefully.
2) Also don’t try to sneak it in like they did in the House:
3) They also need to know that this special legislation for Geronimo must not appear in any other bill — don’t try to sneak it in somewhere else, and don’t forget to take it out, don’t try to drop it in during Conference Committee! NO! NO! NO!
Contact each and every Senator and let them know “No special legislation for Geronimo” and that under Minn. Stat. 500.30, wind easement contracts now terminate after 7 years — do not attempt to change this 7 year limit for existing contracts between landowners and the wind developer/owner. This change would be for the benefit of the Black Oak/Getty wind project(s) and to the detriment of the landowners.
April 21st, 2015
Doesn’t this guy ever quit? New legislation with new option, wanting to change the law to allow a “biomass” plant on the Mesaba Project site. WHAT? Aren’t they paying attention to the Laurentian Energy Authority’s unworkable “biomass” projects in Hibbing and Virginia, the “biomass” plants that don’t have enough feedstock and so are burning coal? Did they forget that the MPCA has only issued one woody biomass permit, for Laurentian (Hibbing and Virginia) and that that permit was violated, so extremely that the MPCA issued fines and reworked the permit?
Thanks to a little birdie for the heads up on this.
Here’s the change, hidden in Senate File 2101:
Today, say NO to lines 191.4 – 191.19 of Senate File 2101.
April 20th, 2015
Quick comments — this project is bizarre, a private project proposed on request of DOE (with applicant ringleader a former DOE employee) that has no demonstrable need. ???
Here’s the link for the DEIS, from their site:
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Plains & Eastern Clean Line Transmission Project (DOE/EIS–0486; Draft EIS) is now available
I do hope the DOE will explain how they intend to review this under Section 1222… it’s all too bizarre for words!