Legalectric

Supposedly the St. Paul Port Authority has recommended biogas as fuel for Rock-Tenn.  Now just what does “biogas” mean?  And produced in “rural Minnesota” and sent via pipeline?  What pipeline, through whose yards? And a twist - Rock-Tenn must commit for 10 years?  GOOD, that’s a first… and a necessary requirement to commit to stay if their steam needs are government subsidized.  Would 10 years be enough to justify that level of public spend?  Can the public get an equity interest for its investment?

Garbage?

Hone asked for an assurance that refuse-derived fuel is definitively “off the table.” She didn’t get it, as both Klein and Carpenter said they could not make that statement.

From the Daily Planet:

Rock-Tenn fuel plans: Win/win at last?

Here’s the article from STrib:

Biogas is endorsed as best fuel for recycler

So biogas “endorsed” but garbage not off table.  What does the “endorsement” mean?

The new Draft Air Permit is out for the Laurentian “biomass” burner in Hibbing, and Comments are open until August 18, 2008.  This is the “clean energy” plant that was violating its air permit and was fined.  Now we’ve got the new one… what’s different?

Notice of Draft Air Permit

Draft Air Permit

Draft Air Permit - Technical Support Document

Comments should be sent, BY AUGUST 18, to:

Toni Volkmeier, Air Quality Permits Section
Industrial Division, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road North, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
651-296-8717 – Fax

email: toni.volkmeier@pca.state.mn.us

I noticed in the permit’s Technical Support Document that although the federal rules have been vacated, they are issuing it “as if” noting that the federal rules were incorporated into the Minnesota Rules.  But as Alan notes, if the rules were vacated because they were ineffective, insufficient to protect the environment, what good is that? Here’s direct from the Technical Document:

2. Regulatory and/or Statutory Basis

New Source Review
The facility is an existing major source under New Source Review regulations. No changes are authorized by this permit.

Part 70 Permit Program
The facility is a major source under the Part 70 permit program.

New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
The existing wood boiler (EU007) is subject to New Source Performance Standards Subpart Db. The applicability is not affected by the changes made through this permit action.

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
The wood boiler (EU007) is permitted as subject to NESHAPs Subpart DDDDD, which has been vacated.  All operating conditions remain the same; however, when the CEMS requirements were consolidated into a single group (GP003), any citations that were previously Subpart DDDDD requirements were changed to Minnesota Rules requirements.

Compliance Assurance Monitoring (CAM)
Since there are no actual changes to emission units, CAM is not an issue at this time.

Minnesota State Rules
Portions of the facility are subject to the following Minnesota Standards of Performance:
• Minn. R. 7011.0510 Standards of Performance for Existing Indirect Heating Equipment
• Minn. R. 7011.0715 Standards of Performance for Post-1969 Industrial Process Equipment
• Minn. R. 7011.2300 Standards of Performance for Stationary Internal Combustion Engines
No changes to applicable requirements result from the changes made through this permit amendment.

So here’s my question… if the MPCA is issuing permits under federal rule, and if they’re doing their Part 70 Permits under federal delegation, and where the rule has been vacated because it didn’t cut it, on what basis, under what authority, are they issuing permits?  This seems to be an area where they’re wide open to challenge!  I would think that any permit issued under the Minnesota adoption of those rules that were deemed inadequate could be thrown out rather easily…

Bizarre, but true! Something that makes camping a lot easier — internet access! Week before last, we took a couple of days off  and went up to Lake Itasca so Alan could see more of Minnesota, and given we’ve both got “virtual offices,” it’s really a problem to be off-line. So hearing that Douglas Lodge at Itasca had wireless, yes, Douglas Lodage:

I figured it wouldn’t be that tough to go over there once in a while. Guess again, there was too much to do and then, after we finally got to the desk near the fireplace, and when telling management how much I appreciated having access there, I learned it was all over the park, and even IN THE PINE RIDGE CAMPGROUND! PERFECT.  Yup, here’s the proof, above!

And we had a wonderful visit with Rollie and Shar Jacobsen, who are living now up near Park Rapids, home of a real old fashioned ice cream parlor (Rollie knows what I like!). I so miss having them as neighbors and extended family right downstairs… as we left, Rollie handed me a genuine Jacobsen’s bag, and delight of delights, it was filled with Jerry Garcia Band CD’s, 10-15 (haven’t counted), I’m still on the second one and savoring every bit.

And yes, we did get out in a boat on Lake Itasca, and saw new baby loons, and one huge, HUGE snapping turtle swimming along.  The world’s biggest red pine is a little worse for wear…

No… this wasn’t the one swimming across the lake…

The Clean Air Interstate Rule has been vacated, and here’s the real deal:

North Carolina v. EPA (consolidated with many more)

OK, one more thing to get figured out…

Otter Tail Power and Otter Tail Corporation are in the news again, with a bland look at their corporate structure.  This is the same corporate structure which is being reorganized because the utility and non-utility businesses were all lumped together.  Now, according to 6/3/08 filings at SEC and PUC, they’re going to reorganize, and put it into a utility holding company, and separate out the non-utility over aways from the utility.  And because an abusive kind of guy out west is getting all riled up about reporting on Otter Tail’s connection with Bill Gates, I think it’s time to get some more info out there!

Here’s the story in the STrib:

Is Otter Tail a utility or conglomerate?

And a snippet:

There have been no formal allegations against Otter Tail for commingling money between the utility and its other holdings. Still the utility in recent years faced a string of accusations that irregular accounting hurts ratepayers. Whiste-blowers first raised the issue four years ago, which led the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission to call Otter Tail in for its first comprehensive rate and operations review in 20 years.

Otter Tail, which has about 130,000 customers, almost half of them in Minnesota, has denied any improprieties in its bookkeeping, and an administrative law judge last month told the commission that he found no evidence of inaccurate financial reporting. Still, some advocates are nervous about its growing diversification…

Read the ALJ’s Rate Case recommendation here and check out p. 21, Capital Structure, and p. 71 too:

ALJ Rate Case Recommendation

Here’s the punch line regarding corporate structure reflected in the loosey-goosey capital structure (p. 103):

4. OTP has not shown that its proposed capital structure accurately reflects an appropriate division of debt and equity. The department’s proposed capital structure does reflect an appropriate division of debt and equity and should be adopted in calculating required revenue.

So what do y’all think about their structure?  The STrib article notes Minnesota Power’s other businesses, but they’re organized in a holding company structure with some separation of activities, and it seems that concern about this is a legitimate issue, particularly in a rate case.  If you can’t tell what’s a regulated business and what’s not, how could they justify or support a rate increase?