Supremes on Michigan v. EPA

June 30th, 2015

Supremes_2015

Here it is, Michigan v. EPA:

Michigan v. EPA   U.S. Supreme Court File No. 14-46

Given this decision, it’s going to be hard for any agency to argue that it shouldn’t do a solid cost benefit analysis, and one that includes verification and analysis of benefits!  That’s a good thing given the outrageous benefits claims I’ve seen in transmission proceedings.  Check this part of the Order early on (I’m just going over it now):

In accordance with Executive Order, the Agency issued a “Regulatory Impact Analysis” alongside its regulation.This analysis estimated that the regulation would force power plants to bear costs of $9.6 billion per year. Id., at 9306. The Agency could not fully quantify the benefits of reducing power plants’ emissions of hazardous air pollutants; to the extent it could, it estimated that these benefits were worth $4 to $6 million per year. Ibid. The costs to power plants were thus between 1,600 and 2,400 times as great as the quantifiable benefits from reduced emissions of hazardous air pollutants. The Agency continued that its regulations would have ancillary benefits—including cutting power plants’ emissions of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide, substances that are not covered by the hazardous-air-pollutants program. Although the Agency’s appropriate-and-necessary finding did not rest on these ancillary effects, id., at 9320, the regulatory impact analysis took them into account, increasing the Agency’s estimate of the quantifiable benefits of its regulation to $37 to $90 billion per year, id., at 9306. EPA concedes that the regulatory impact analysis “played no role” in its appropriate-and-necessary finding. Brief for Federal Respondents 14.

Michigan v. EPA, p. 4.  The regulatory impact analysis included the information, it was in the record, but EPA says that it “played no role” in that decision.  So can’t they just reissue it, state they took that into account and used it as a basis for its decision and everyone can go home?  AAAARGH!

And here’s a highlight where I actually agree (!) with a sentence in Thomas’ Concurrence:

Statutory ambiguity thus becomes an implicit delegation of rule-making authority, and that authority is used not to find the best meaning of the text, but to formulate legally binding rules to fill in gaps based on policy judgments made by the agency rather than Congress.

Dissents, p. 3 (pdf p. 20 of 47).

 

mesabaone

Remember the Excelsior Energy Mesaba Project (see Legalectric posts and Citizens Against the Mesaba Project’s “Camp Site”), the boondoggle coal gasification plant that almost was, the project that got every legislative perk possible, got financing and grants based on wishful thinking and that “something else” that we just can’t identify (without which, who would think this was a good idea?  That plant that was to be built, according to the special legislation for this project, on a site WITH INFRASTRUCTURE?  This site… dig the infrastructure!

mesabadoesitevisit2

Anyway, it wasn’t built here.  But a similar plant WAS built in Indiana, the Edwardsport plant owned by Duke Energy.  As with the Mesaba Project it was proposed at a reasonable price, legislators were first told $700 million, and then it went upwards of $2.11 billion.  For Edwardsport, same story, and that price kept going up, up, up, and in Indiana, it was so extreme that costs recoverable from ratepayers were capped by the Indiana Public Utility Commission at $2.9 BILLION.  It was allowed to be built, and it started operating, sort of…  Average output has been 41%, when an 80+% capacity factor was promised.  Repairs?  That’s putting it mildly.  Now they’re going to try to get cost recovery for that.

Problems pile up at Edwardsport 06-14-2015

Now, let’s not all forget all the money given by the Joyce Foundation to support this nonsense.

+++++++++++++

Here’s a specific and eloquent comment from Michael Mullet, very involved in opposition to the Edwardsport fiasco:

    You raise what is definitely the “bottom line” question for Edwardsport given the huge subsidy which almost 800,000 Indiana ratepayers have been paying and are continuing to pay to Duke Energy every month for Edwardsport generation.
    Based on what DEI customers had paid to the Company for Edwardsport and the plant’s net generation through March 2014, the cumulative cost since Edwardsport costs (including CWIP charges) began appearing in customer rates in 2009 was approximately 57 cents per kwh and the current cost for only the twelve month period under review in pending Cause No. 43114-IGCC-12&13 was approximately 33 cents per kwh.  See Direct Testimony of Ralph C. Smith, Joint Intervenors Exhibit A, IURC Causes Nos. 43114-IGCC-12&13, filed December 15, 2014, pp. 48-54.
    Complaints by Duke Energy and other Indiana IOUs that the costs of energy efficiency under Energizing Indiana were “excessive’” resulted in the Indiana General Assembly abruptly terminating that program in 2014 even though an impartial third party concluded that its costs were approximately 4 cents per kwh of electricity saved.    Complaints by Duke Energy and other Indiana IOUs that the costs of customer credits for rooftop solar power in the range of 9 to 13 cents per kwh represent an unfair and unaffordable subsidy to approximately 500 net metering customers statewide also resulted in serious legislative consideration of a bill (thankfully not resulting in any enacted legislation to date) to terminate that program as well.
    In this context of sustainable resources being “too costly” at a level of 4 to 13 cents per kwh, it would seem long overdue for Indiana’s regulators (or, alternatively, its legislators and its Governor) either to impose a reasonable “operating cost cap” on Edwardsport charges to customers or, failing that, to shut the plant down as grossly uneconomic and a monumental waste of scarce ratepayer resources in the face of Edwardsport costs for millions of mwh of coal gas generation with no carbon capture let alone sequestration which are multiple orders of magnitude greater than those for end-use efficiency under Energizing Indiana  or rooftop solar under Net Metering.
    This incredible ”double standard” to subsidize Indiana’s favorite ”crony capitalists” at Duke Energy and Peabody Coal (whose Bear Run mine in southwest Indiana supplies 100% of Ewardsport’s coal) in order to permit them to spew millions of tons of unregulated CO2 annually into the global atmosphere should end ASAP.
                                                                                                        Michael A. Mullet
 

PatMichelettiXplntFair Use from STrib

In today’s STrib:

Micheletti recovering from transplant after brother donates kidney

Says he was in severe pain and thought he had hip issues… whoa… and then went to Mayo to get checked out:

Doctors believe Pat Micheletti’s kidneys were failing because of years of taking the over-the-counter pain reliever, Motrin (ibuprofen), to deal with discomfort stemming from his hockey-playing career. Alex said his dad plans to start making hockey players aware of the dangers of taking too much ibuprofen.

I’ve not dealt with Pat since Excelsior Energy Mesaba Project days, what a protracted sticky and very painful mess that was.  He’s probably very glad to be out of that… I remember when he was caught in the midst of an ex parte contact blitz:

Excelsior’s indirect ex parte contact

July 26th, 2007

I will never forget the packed standing-room-only hearing in Taconite when one of the public commenters drifted up the aisle in flowing clothing and brought a sculpture/collage/birdcage(?) as an exhibit to present to the judge, representing the Mesaba Project and what it meant to her, the devastation it would create, and she said she made it especially for Pat (it might have been his birthday that evening).  He was sitting near the back, on the center aisle, head in hands, shaking his head in disbelief at this odd presentation.  The judge was visibly afraid/concerned, he held his hands up, “stay back” or some such, did not want her to approach with that “exhibit.”  It was one of the most hilarious parts of that long mess.

FlightPath

Recently, I’ve received USFWS responses to our FOIA Requests regarding the Black Oak and Getty wind projects, and there’s a LOT, and I don’t think that it’s made its way into either the Certificate of Need or Siting dockets at the Public Utilities Commission.

To see the PUC Dockets GO HERE TO PUC SEARCH PAGE and then search for dockets 11-471 (CoN), and 10-1240 and 11-831 (siting).

Here’s what we’ve received — it’s not uploading easily, so there’s some duplication and some may not all be included, and I’ll be working on getting this posted today:

Hogeboom_FOIA Cover

5 U.S.C. § 552

43 CFR Part 2 Subpart F (handling conf info)

BlackOakGettyWindDraftAvianReportInitialCommentMemo110902

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – Getty_Black Oak Wind Recent

DNR Letter_Maps

DNR-CommentsBlackOakWindFarmDraftSitePermit110422

DNR-CommentsGettyWindDraftSitePermit_DraftABPP-120404

Getty Black Oak Acoustic Report – DNR Comments

Getty Windfarm Early Coordination Response (2)

DNR-CommentsBlackOak-GettyPermitAmendment140929

FWS-2015-00281 C_Overland Partial Release2

Black Oak and Getty Wind Farm Draft ABPP – USFWS Review Comment Letter1

Black Oak ECP General Comments Black Oak Getty Model Information

Black Oak survey points

Black Oak Wind Farm – USFWS Response Letter 3-26-2010 (2)

Black Oak Wind Farm – USFWS Response Letter 3-26-2010

Black Oak Wind Farm – USFWS Review Response Letter (2)

Black Oak Wind Farm – USFWS Review Response Letter

Black Oak Wind Farm Eagle Minutes Black Oak Wind Steinhauer Tails 2009

FA 0145 Black Oak-Getty Agenda 8-30-11 (2)

BOGY_BatStudy_Hamer_12172012

Davis to Jennings Dewild et al Getty Wind 2010 FA 0068

Davis to Smith Geronimo Black Oak 2009 FA 0145

Davis to Steinhauer – Getty Wind Project Site Permit Application IP6866

WS-11-831 Davis to Steinhauer MN Commerce Energy Security

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – Black Oak and Odell

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – Black Oak ECP Comments

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – Black Oak Getty eagle minutes

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – Black Oak Getty shapefiles

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – Black Oak Survey points map

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – Black Oak Wind – Catching Up

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – Black Oak Wind – ECP

USFWS Comments – Black Oak and Getty Wind Draft ABPP

RE_ model question5

RVSmry RE_ model question4

RE_ model question3

RE_ model question2

_ RE_ model question5

_ New modeling data

Rescheduled_ Avian Report for Black Oak and Getty Wind Projects (Aug 31 10_00 AM CDT in _COMM_Conference Room 636)

Re_ model question

Re_ Getty Wind Project Site Permit Application IP6866_WS-11-831

Re_ Geronimo Black Oak Eagle Nest

Re_ Geronimo Black Oak Eagle Ne2

Re_ Geronimo Black Oak Eagle Ne

Re_ Geronimo Black Oak and Getty Wind Farm Bald Eagle Discussion

Re_ FW_ Black Oak Wind Farm-Ste

Re_ DNR Comments on Black Oak _ Getty WInd Bat Acoustic Report1

RE_ DNR Comments on Black Oak _ Getty WInd Bat Acoustic Report

Re_ Black Oak_Paynesville Follow Up

RE_ Black Oak_Getty Wind Projects – Data and Model Exchange3

RE_ Black Oak_Getty Wind Projects – Data and Model Exchange1

RE_ Black Oak_Getty Wind Projects – Data and Model Exchange

Re_ Black Oak_Getty Eagle use survey protocol

RE_ Black Oak_Getty Avian Report — potential meeting change3

RE_ Black Oak_Getty Avian Report — potential meeting change2

RE_ Black Oak_Getty Avian Report — potential meeting change1

RE_ Black Oak_Getty Avian Report — potential meeting change

RE_ Avian Report for Black Oak and Getty Wind Projects

RE_ Accepted_ Avian Report for Black Oak and Getty Wind Projects

PUC Docket Number_ IP-6866_WS-11-831 – Getty Wind Project Comments

PREDICTING EAGLE COLLISION FATALITIES

Paynesville Follo

Letter from Rich Davis, USFWS, re Black Oak Wind Farm Site Permit App Review

Getty Eagle use Getty Avian Maps

Geronimo Black Oak Wildlife Discussion1 Geronimo Black Oak Wildlife Discussion

Geronimo Black Oak and Getty Wind Farm Bald Eagle

Fw_ Getty Wind

FW_ DNR Comments on Black Oak _ Getty WInd Bat Acoustic Report3

FW_ Black Oak Wind Farm-Stearns

FatalFcns

DNR Initial Comments Memo – Black Oak_Getty Wind Draft Avian Report

DistFcns

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – Black Oak and Getty Wind

Meeting Summary

CollisionModel

CollisionFatalityModel_RCodeOverview

CMDataTemplate Black Oak_Getty Wind Avian meeting rescheduled

Black Oak_Getty Agenda for 8-30-11 meeting

Black Oak Wind Farm, Stearns County Black Oak and Getty Bat Study

Black Oak Wind Farm – USFWS Review Response Letter3

Black Oak – Getty Wind ABPP USFWS Comments

Avian Report for Black Oak and Getty Wind Projects

USFWS Meeting Agenda

Triggers for AM at Windfarms_June 18_2014 (1)

template for collision risk model_MR_June18

template for collision risk model

Stearns bird list

Fig1_EaglePreConstructionSurvey

Email17_attachment1 EFP_Memo_ABPP_2-27-12

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – RE_ Black Oak_Getty Wind Farm and ECP Guidance – Meeting Agenda

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – quick R question

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – Meeting in January 2014 for Black Oak_Getty Wind Farm

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – Invitation_ Black Oak chat @ Wed Jul 2, 2014 10am – 11am (margaret_rheude@fws

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – Ingrid Schwingler has shared the folder ‘BOGY Information for USFWS’ with you

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – Fwd_ Cause of Action FOIA (FWS-2014-01383) – Files Uploaded

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – FW_ DNR Comments on Black Oak _ Getty WInd Bat Acoustic Report

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – Final Black Oak and Getty Wind Meeting Notes

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – Draft Regional Eagle meeting notes, Wednesday, December 3, 2014

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – bogy

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – Black Oak_Getty Wind Project

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – Black Oak_Getty Wind Farm and ECP Guidance

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – Black Oak_Getty Model Runs from July 2

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – Black Oak_Getty Eagle Conservation Plan

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – BOGY ECP

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – Black Oak Wind Farm data

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – Black Oak Wind Farm and Getty Wind Project Eagle Monitoring Plan

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – Black Oak Wind – ECP

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – Black Oak Wind – Catching Up

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – Black Oak Survey points map

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – Black Oak Getty shapefiles

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – Black Oak Getty eagle minutes

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – Black Oak ECP Comments

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – Black Oak and Odell Davis to Steinhauer MN Commerce Energy Securit

Davis to Steinhauer – Getty Wind Project Site Permit Application IP6866 WS-11-831

Davis to Smith Geronimo Black Oak 2009 FA 0145

Davis to Jennings Dewild et al Getty Wind 2010 FA 0068

BOGY_BatStudy_Hamer_12172012

Meeting_Agenda_Geronimo_BlackOak_20110111 (2)

GOEA vs BAEA for Stearns Getty Tech Rep Memo

FWSModelCode_v4.1_README (1)

Fig1_EaglePreConstructionSurvey

Email17_attachment1

EFP_Memo_ABPP_2-27-12

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – RE_ Black Oak_Getty Wind Farm and ECP Guidance – Meeting Agenda

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – quick R question

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – Meeting in January 2014 for Black Oak_Getty Wind Farm

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – Invitation_ Black Oak chat @ Wed Jul 2, 2014 10am – 11am (margaret_rheude@fws

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – Ingrid Schwingler has shared the folder ‘BOGY Information for USFWS’ with you

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – Fwd_ Cause of Action FOIA (FWS-2014-01383) – Files Uploaded

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – FW_ DNR Comments on Black Oak _ Getty WInd Bat Acoustic Report

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – Final Black Oak and Getty Wind Meeting Notes

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – Draft Regional Eagle meeting notes, Wednesday, December 3, 2014

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – bogy

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – Black Oak_Getty Wind Project

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – Black Oak_Getty Wind Farm and ECP Guidance

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – Black Oak_Getty Model Runs from July 2

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – Black Oak_Getty Eagle Conservation Plan

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – BOGY ECP DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – Black Oak Wind Farm data

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – Black Oak Wind Farm and Getty Wind Project Eagle Monitoring Plan

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – Black Oak Wind – ECP

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – Black Oak Wind – Catching Up

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – Black Oak Survey points map

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – Black Oak Getty shapefiles

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – Black Oak Getty eagle minutes

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – Black Oak ECP Comments

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail – Black Oak and Odell Davis to Steinhauer MN Commerce Energy Securit Davis to Steinhauer – Getty Wind Project Site Permit Application IP6866 WS-11-831

Davis to Smith Geronimo Black Oak 2009 FA 0145

Davis to Jennings Dewild et al Getty Wind 2010 FA 0068

BOGY_BatStudy_Hamer_12172012 Steans Co Wind Farm  Jennisson nest map  Flight path  BOGY turbines Black Oak-Getty Agenda 8-30-11 (2) modeling question4 attachmentRplot

 

BOGY turbines  MID

micheletti_1_mpr082216

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?

LEGALECTRIC POST: Laurentian “biomass” Air Permit Draft (second time around)

LEGALECTRIC POST: “Biomass” violates air permit – fines likely

DOH!

Thanks to a little birdie for the heads up on this.

littlebirdie3

Here’s the change, hidden in Senate File 2101:

2101Today, say NO to lines 191.4 – 191.19 of Senate File 2101.