Otter Tail “has no objection”
June 5th, 2008
Otter Tail’s David Sasseville (Lindquist & Vennum) said that they had no objection to administrative of their filings of June 3, 2008. What else did he have to say? Here’s his missive after I filed the mncoalgasplant.com Motion for Disclosure & Commission Notice; Exhibit A - Otter Tail Power 8k filing to, duh, have the filing disclosed and for Official Notice by the Public Utilities Commission:
This reply is submitted on behalf of the Big Stone II Applicants, and that project’s lead developer, Otter Tail Power Company. Ms. Overland’s communication to the Commission and the parties in the Big Stone II transmission docket regarding Otter Tail’s filing yesterday was inappropriate and unnecessary. Otter Tail has not formed a holding company and has not reorganized. Rather, it merely filed applications yesterday in Minnesota, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, North Dakota and South Dakota for permission to form a holding company. The SEC filing referenced by Ms. Overland merely reflects the fact that Otter Tail is seeking permission to form a holding company. Whether that ultimately occurs, and whether and how Otter Tail’s organizational structure changes, will be resolved in the context of the FERC, SDPUC and NDPSC dockets, and the MPUC docket that was created yesterday (No. PA-08-658). Under no circumstances will yesterday’s filing have an impact on the Big Stone II docket, or on Otter Tail’s ability to proceed with its obligations and commitments in that docket. Otter Tail’s filing is available electronically at the PUC’s web site. In addition, Ms. Overland and/or MNCoalgasplant.com may add their names to the mailing list in the docket to receive future filings in the matter. David L. Sasseville Lindquist & Vennum P.L.L.P. 4200 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 612/371-3237 612/371-3207 (fax)
Yes, the filing is NOW available on the PUC eDockets site. Go to www.puc.state.mn.us and then to “eDockets” on the left, and then to “Search Documents” and search for 08-658. Inappropriate and unnecessary? When the parties are making final arguments in the Big Stone II case and Commission is making a decision, it’s fully appropriate to nail down disclosure and notice by the Commission … sigh… and here’s my response:
Mr. Sasseville and all: It is my belief and the purpose of this Motion that: 1) this filing should be formally disclosed within the Big Stone II proceeding by Otter Tail Corporation/Otter Tail Power (as of your missive, it now has been acknowledged); and 2) this filing should receive Official Notice in the Big Stone II deliberation by the Public Utilities commission. It is unknown whether there will be any impact, and the Motion does not address substantive issues of the reorganization nor suggest that substantive issues be addressed in the Big Stone docket, just that it should be disclosed and receive Official Notice of the Commission. Carol A. Overland for mncoalgasplant.com
To which he responded:
Ms. Overland: Your email implies that the Otter Tail filing portends something the Commission should be aware of, but isn’t, and that such information is a matter of actual or potential significance to the proper determination of the Big Stone II Transmission Certificate of Need and Route Permit proceeding tomorrow. While these implications are unfounded, the Big Stone II Applicants, including Otter Tail, have no objection to the Commission taking administrative notice of any and all docket filings in matters before it, including Otter Tail’s June 3, 2008 filing, and assigning whatever weight to those filings it believes is appropriate.
Well, that’s good, “the Big Stone II Applicants, including Otter Tail, have no objection to the Commission taking administrative notice of any and all docket filings in matters before it, including Otter Tail’s June 3, 2008 filing…” which is the entire point! Get it out there in the open…
Otter Tail Corporation’s News Release Page - do you see a press release about this filing?
…so then I says:
Mr. Sasseville - My concern, again, is twofold, first, that Otter Tail disclose the fact of the filings to the Commission and the parties (I do not believe this had been done prior) and it should be in the record, and second, that the Commission take administrative notice of these filings. That’s all. Because you state that “the Big Stone II Applicants, including Otter Tail, have no objection to the Commission taking administrative notice of any and all docket filings in matters before it, including Otter Tail’s June 3, 2008, filing,” I trust that disclosure and a statement that Otter Tail has no objection will occur.. Thank you for your statement of Otter Tail’s position. Carol for mncoalgasplant.com
And so what happened at the deliberation, what’s happening right now? Who knows… Was this addressed? Who knows…
Contracts in Iraq boost sagging power industry
March 24th, 2008
We’re paying $4.9 billion to rebuild the Iraqi electrical system that we destroyed? What the hell do we think we’re doing there? Are we bombing them back to the stone age so corporations can make $$$$ — well, I think that’s already been established. Who benefits, who pays?
Anyone concerned about security of our electric grid should be working for distributed generation and away from vulnerable large generators a long way from load connected by vulnerable transmission lines. It’s a “DUH!” So why don’t “we” get it?
From LA Times via Truthout today, a nuts and bolts example of what we’ve done to Iraq, another argument for distributed generation, and another example of US corporations profiting from our destruction:
A Different Kind of Power Struggle in Iraq
By Alexandra Zavis
The Los Angeles Times“I feel sick just thinking about it,” Radi said.
For the first time in five years, Moon said, “I think it could be a very bearable summer.”
Times staff writer Usama Redha in Baghdad contributed to this report.
3M + PFOA = worker deaths
March 6th, 2008

The 3M Museum in Two Harbors, Minnesota
Remember not long ago the report that the Minnesota Health Department, when confronted with PFOA contamination of municipal wells by 3M, decided to take “further steps to protect the health of residents” and to do this they RAISE ACCEPTABLE LIMITS OF PFOA rather than come down hard on the polluters? WRONG ANSWER, FOLKS.
Here’s the MN Dept. of Health press release:
Minnesota Department of Health
News ReleaseHealth officials issue new health guidelines for PFOA, PFOS; reiterate protective advice on PFBA
For more information, contact:
Rep. Sandy Wollschlager is in the 3M Environmental department — I expect her to represent her constituency and utilize her connections, to take a leadership role in this and broker a resolution of strong company and MDH and MPCA action, remediation, prevention, company liability to those with contaminated water and harm, and massive fines to 3M.
Today, there’s this in the STrib:
Study: Death rate up for 3M workers exposed to PFOA
By TOM MEERSMAN, Star Tribune
March 5, 2008
Workers who were exposed to a chemical called PFOA at 3M’s factory in Cottage Grove died of stroke and prostate cancer at higher rates than other workers at the plant, according to a new industry-funded study.
The study of nearly 4,000 people who worked at the plant from 1943 to 1997 found elevated stroke and prostate cancer death rates among those exposed to the chemical, which was used until 2000 for nonstick coatings and other products.
Workers with the highest exposures were twice as likely to die of prostate cancer and stroke than colleagues with little or no exposure to the chemical, the study found.
The death rates from those diseases among all workers at that plant were similar to those of the general population, leading 3M officials to call the difference a statistical anomaly.
“Nothing in this study changes our conclusion that there are no adverse health effects from PFOA,” 3M spokesman Bill Nelson said Wednesday.
3M manufactured PFOA from 1947 to 2000 at its Cottage Grove plant and phased out production by 2002. It was used for nonstick cookware, stain-repellent coatings and dozens of other products.
Starting in the 1970s, scientists became concerned about the tendency of PFOA — perfluorooctanoic acid — and other perfluorochemicals to accumulate in people’s blood. 3M started monitoring the health of its employees who worked with the chemical, and in 1980 undertook the first occupational mortality study of its workers.
Although PFOA has been shown to cause liver, pancreatic and testicular cancer in laboratory animals, 3M has maintained that studies of its workers show no health problems.
Dated August 2007
The latest study was financed by 3M and conducted by Bruce Alexander, a University of Minnesota epidemiologist. Although dated August 2007, the study wasn’t placed in a public file with the Environmental Protection Agency until last month.
Alexander did not respond to several requests for comment, and Nelson said Alexander would not talk about the study publicly because it has not been peer-reviewed by scientists and published in a scientific journal.
The study of Cottage Grove workers included nearly 4,000 people who worked at the plant for at least a year any time from 1943 until the end of 1997. About 12 percent of them had definite exposure to the chemical, which can be absorbed through “inhalation, ingestion, and dermal contact,” the study said. The rest were evenly divided between those who probably had some exposure to it, and those who had no exposure.
Researchers studied death certificates for workers through Dec. 31, 2002.
“A high or moderate exposure work history, compared to only working in low exposure jobs, was associated with an increased risk for [stroke] and prostate cancer,” it concluded.
Nelson said that differences between the employee groups led to “skewed ratios,” and that the important thing is that overall results for employees show no higher cancer risks than for the state’s population.
However, the researchers also noted that mortality studies “miss the cases that do not result in death,” or that for some reason “may not be listed as contributing causes of death on a death certificate.”
They mentioned that the association between prostate cancer and exposure to PFOA was similar to research conducted by others in 1993. That study found that those who worked for 10 years in the chemical division at the Cottage Grove plant had three times more prostate cancer deaths than those who worked for a decade in nonchemical areas there.
Nelson said that the 1993 research was a “flawed study” because it incorrectly characterized some of the exposed workers, and that the research was disproved by a 2002 study. He agreed with the latest study’s findings that more analysis is needed, now that the mortality study is done.
“Instead of death rates, we plan to look at the incidence of prostate cancer,” Nelson said. “That would be the next step.”
Informing the public
John Linc Stine, environmental health division director for the Minnesota Department of Health, said state officials received the latest 3M study of its Cottage Grove workers Wednesday and have not had time to review it.
Stine said it’s important that 3M has done the work, and that the public will want to know what it means. PFOA is more than merely a concern for 3M workers: Community wells in Oakdale and private wells in Lake Elmo were contaminated with the chemical, likely from wastes that 3M sent to dumps in those areas decades ago. The company has paid for Oakdale to install a huge water filtration system to remove all perfluorochemicals, and for more than 200 private wells in Lake Elmo to be hooked up to untainted city water.
“It’s likely that people exposed to this chemical in drinking water will want to know if they are at elevated levels for heart disease or stroke or cancer,” Stine said. “I can’t answer those questions now but we will look at the study and try to put it in context for the communities.”
Information about the research comes just a week after state health officials relaxed a limit for a different perfluorochemical, PFBA, that has been detected in groundwater beneath much of the east metro area. Water supplies in those communities are no longer considered to be contaminated except for a few private households, which continue to use bottled water or filtering systems.
Tom Meersman • 612-673-7388
Coal Conference in Houston
February 28th, 2008
Tim Pawlenty? Message for a Tim Pawlenty!
February 25th, 2008
Is there a “Tim Pawlenty” in the House? Message for a “Tim Pawlenty,” is “Tim Pawlenty” here?
As a friend said, “Maybe this is the beginning of the end?” We can hope…
Pawlenty thinks he can veto the Transportation Bill?!?!?! Long overdue to put the state’s interests first, the Minnesota Legislature just gave the “Green Chameleon” a strong message smack upside the head.
Special thanks to:
Rep. Jim Abeler
Rep. Rod Hamilton
Rep. Kathy Tinglestad
Rep. Bud Heidgerken
Rep. Ron Erhardt
Rep. Neil Peterson
Please take a few minutes and send them all an email of thanks - it’s easy, send to:
rep.(first name).(last name)@house.mn
It’s good to know that sometimes people can be counted on to think about and vote for the public interest, the state’s interest, all of our interests, and buck party line to do it. THANKS!!!
I mean really… how many bridges have to collapse, how many people have to die, before he’ll admit that we need to spend money on the roads in Minnesota?

