This press conference in Delaware celebrating their victory in stopping a 280 or so MW power plant flying in under the cover of a “data center” that needed maybe 1/10 of that. The University of Delaware terminated its lease agreement.

Rep. John Kowalko of Newark, Delaware — he was on this, leading the charge, and got a lot of flak for it, but persistence paid off. Kowalko is one of the few state Reps. around who represents his people with gusto!

  Press Conference Part I – Rep. Kowalko is on starting ~ 10:50

He’s also on again in Part II at 1:39, announcing a 1.2 MW solar project at the University of Delaware:


A friend found this on her door in Richfield today.  Called the number, 651-771-1500, and asked that they not flyer her house (is there a “Do not lit drop” list?), and got a ration of hateful verbal abuse.

I went to the site, “Planned Parenthood Exposed,” and it’s pretty rabid.  EEEEEUW.

How’s this, according to them, Planned Parenthood  would “aid and abet the sex-trafficking of minor girls” (linked below):

Investigations found seven Planned Parenthood clinics in four different states were willing to aid and abet the sex-trafficking of minor girls by supplying confidential birth control, STD testing, and secret abortions to underage girls and their traffickers.

Or this (linked):

Planned Parenthood received over $500 million in forced taxpayer funding last year. And the nation’s largest abortion corporation is teaching the children it doesn’t abort to abuse, degrade, and torture each other for sexual satisfaction.

It’s an operation of “Prolife Action Ministries” — and today, lit drops claiming “Planned Parenthood is Preying Upon Your Community.”

It’s too bad my brother isn’t in the neighborhood anymore — I’m sure he and Oggy would like to have a chat with them!

Here’s a blurb on their site that has me scratching my head?  If you can figure it out, let me know how it’s possible to “dramatically increased the number of babies killed by abortion in 2013″ “in spite of the number of abortions being performed in Minnesota dropping to its lowest level since before 1975.”  Am I missing something here?  I’d think they’d be happy that the number of abortions are dropping…

Planned Parenthood Dramatically increases abortions

Minnesota Abortions at Lowest Level since Before 1975

(July 1, 2014) – Planned Parenthood, Minnesota’s abortion giant, dramatically increased the number of babies killed by abortion in 2013 according to the just released Report to the Legislature by the Minnesota Department of Health.  This in spite of the number of abortions being performed in Minnesota dropping to its lowest level since before 1975.

“Clearly, Planned Parenthood equals abortion.  Planned Parenthood has attempted to rebrand itself as healthcare, but it remains nothing more than the state’s greatest purveyor of abortion,” said Brian Gibson, Executive Director of Pro-Life Action Ministries.  “There is no truth to its propaganda about reducing abortions.  This organization finds a way to dutifully increase its abortion numbers in accord with Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s quotas while Minnesota’s abortion number continues to decline,” Gibson continued.

Planned Parenthood opened a referral clinic in Richfield on Monday which targets the Hispanic community in a continuing effort to expand its abortion business.


The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission is to take up the proposal for revisions to Minn. R. Ch. 7829, which is the PUC’s practice and procedure chapter.  I call it their stealth rulemaking docket.

Bluejay    A little birdie told me that the Commission will publish a Notice of  Intent to Adopt based on the draft filed on July 9, and delegated to Commissioner Lipschultz the authority to make necessary, non-substantive edits for cleanup and consultation with the Revisor, before publication in the state register.

It will be coming back up for public comment probably in the next month or so once the draft is published.


Here’s the draft filed July 9:

Staff Briefing Papers_(Last Minute)_20147-101333-01

Here’s what was filed on July 2 (link may not work, eDockets is funky, “eFiling Image Repository is unavailable. We’re sorry, your search cannot be completed at this time. If you feel you have reached this message in error, please Contact“):

Briefing Papers 13-24.pdf. JULY 10, 2014 AGENDA

The new filing didn’t appear in e-dockets until this morning, as I understand it, because of technical problems with e-dockets over the last 24 hours or so.

I’ve been concerned about this chapter for a long while, and submitted a Petition for Rulemaking some time ago:

Overland Petition for Rulemaking-7829

Here are the rules:

7829 Utility Proceeding, Practice, Procedure

Here’s the notice and proposed changes:

Request for Comments_20132-83863-02

Proposed Rules

It’s been an odd rulemaking.  They published the initial notice of “potential” rulemaking, or some such, but who got it?  Not moi… and I learned of it only just before it was to go before the PUC.  Here are a couple of posts:

Minn. R. 7829 marches on…

September 9th, 2013


An air emissions decision emerged from the bowels of the U.S. Supreme Court today.  Here’s the PDF:

U.S. SCt Court Case No. 12-1146_ Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA

Here’s the gist from the syllabus:

I’m glad for the most part that my practice doesn’t get deep into these issues, this is pretty dense.  But what strikes me is the absurdity of any reliance or reference to “carbon capture and storage” as useful in a BACT analysis.  Oh my…




“Bogus?”  Yes, bogus, because a Rulemaking Advisory Committee is “to comment, before publication of a notice of intent to adopt or a notice of hearing, on the subject matter of a possible rulemaking under active consideration within the agency.“  That is NOT happening.

What is there to show for the YEAR since the statute was passed and signed to trigger this rulemaking?  What is there to show for the SIX MONTHS of monthly meetings of the Rulemaking Advisory Committee?  Here it is — the agencies’ “DRAFT concepts” document that they passed out at the May 18 meeting (note it’s not even close to a DRAFT rule):

140516 Air Rule Concept Document

I was told that it would be posted on the Advisory Committee page, well, that was over a month ago and it’s still not posted in preparation for or after the June meeting.  Looking at that Advisory Committee page, there are no materials published for the May meeting, nor are there any for June:

Silica Sand Rulemaking Advisory Panel

This is not public involvement, and this is not providing an opportunity for review of the draft rules.  This committee has been meeting for six months now, and there’s a statement that the proposal will go before the EQB in September…

So back to the EQB.  Thursday’s EQB meeting was a long meeting, one which Alan and I only attended for the CO2 discussion and did not stay for the silica sand discussion (we both received only one day’s notice on this pre-meeting “listening session.”).  No packet materials were posted.  From the EQB site: EQB board meeting proposed agenda, June 18, 2014: Agenda and accompanying materials for meeting, June 18, 2014. (54.38K, .pdf).  NOTHING in the way of materials whatsoever, though one member commented on the large quantity of materials in the packet.

Now I’ve had a chance to listen to the video (THESE VIDEOS ARE MUCH APPRECIATED!).  Check it out:

During the silica sand part, EQB E.D. Will Seuffert stated that the Advisory Panel met yesterday, that would have been June 17, 2014, and that their intent is to have a proposal before the Board for the September meeting.

So the Rulemaking Advisory Committee will see the proposals when and have time to review them when???  This committee has been meeting for six months and has yet to have a draft rule to review.

Since day one, I’ve been warning, predicting, declaring, that what these agencies are doing is paying lip service to engagement of the public, the “stakeholders” in this process, and forging on without giving them any opportunity to participate in a meaningful way, and certainly not giving them any opportunity to comment on rule drafts as anticipated by the statute.  I’ve been pushing staff about it, and get assurances that no, that’s not what’s going on.  HA!

Check this video, particularly starting ~ 53, where DNR staff is explaining rulemaking at the FIFTH meeting of this Rulemaking Advisory Committee, talking around participation of the committee and brushing off any expectation of a draft rule. GRRRRRRR. LISTEN TO MAY MEETING HERE.

And to add to the mess, those supposedly representing the public are not providing updates to those they’re supposed to be representing.  GRRRRRRRRRRR.  No reports on these meetings whatsoever.  As representatives, it’s your job to provide updates after the meetings with analysis of what happened and next steps.  Nada… not a word.  I’m certainly not feeling represented!

Some posts on the failure of agencies involved to properly and meaningfully utilize the Advisory Committee to comment on DRAFT RULES:

Silica Sand Rulemaking off track…   April 30th, 2014

And once more with feeling, state law clearly and expressly authorizes and establishes the role of a Rulemaking Advisory Committee.  The statutory purpose is to COMMENT on the proposed draft… BEFORE it’s published:


Subd. 2.Advisory committees.

Each agency may also appoint committees to comment, before publication of a notice of intent to adopt or a notice of hearing, on the subject matter of a possible rulemaking under active consideration within the agency.

These agencies adamantly objected to formation of an Advisory Committee, from that earlier blog post, “Someone explain rulemaking to the MPCA here’s the MPCA resistence and an explanation:

MPCA staff’s report to the EQB stated inexplicably that they were “confused,” claiming ignorance of how rulemaking works and the impact of comments at this stage:

i. Staff requests Board direction on a question that arose at the August 2nd public meetings.

Members of the public expressed interest in a citizen committee to participate in the rulemaking. It is not clear how a citizen committee would affect the rulemaking process laid out in Minn. Statutes Ch. 14. A multi-step public review and comment process is already required in that statute and we just completed the preliminary step. Rulemaking is essentially creating law: Minnesota Rules have the force and effect of law. Rulemaking is a lengthy process, averaging about two years.

Who cares about rulemaking?  Who cares about rules?  I care!  Anyone looking to the state to protect the health and safety of Minnesotans!  And that IS their job.

FYI, an aside… recently a little birdie involved with a new sand plant in Wisconsin told me that it’s not in compliance with air permits, and might not ever be able to bring it into compliance (not without spending more money on  limiting emissions than they want to!).  These emissions rules being developed in Minnesota are crucial.

Rules are important.  Let’s see the DRAFT rules and give us reasonable time to review and comment!