e21 Planning Meeting announced
February 13th, 2015
Hot off the press — Notice of a Commission Planning Meeting:
The meeting details:
2:00 p.m. on Thursday February 26, 2015
Minnesota Public Utilities Commission
121 – 7th Place East, Suite 350, Large Hearing Room
St. Paul, MN 55101
Here we go — the PUC has announced a “planning meeting” for this e21 Initiative based on the filing of Xcel Energy last month. What filing? Well, this one:
Here’s what the PUC says they’re going to do at that meeting:
Why is the Commission going along with this to the extent that they are? Well, they do have connections, and for sure PUC Commissione Nancy Lange, who is listed as Advisory Committee on the Citizens League e21 promotional group, should NOT be participating at the Commission, in discussions or by voting (see Appendix B, p. 1, of the Citizens League Policy Framework to Optimize Efficiency of the Electrical Energy System_Phase2):
Citizen’s League’s mighty presumptuous charge from this report, to recommend e21 and draft legislation!!!
And remember, Xcel, in its letter they asked the Public Utilities Commission for a meeting:
Throughout this e21 filing they say, repeatedly, that this is a “package,” and the consensus depends on this being a “package,” which is reminiscent of the “it’s a deal, a package deal, and it’s a good deal” of the 2005 Transmission Omnibus Bill from Hell. We saw how that “good deal” worked, how it worked for the public, and who it was “a good deal” for. Disgusting…
But that big red flag is not all — they also asked that no Comment Period be scheduled:
Thus, we respectfully request that the Commission delay initiating a comment period to allow for additional collaboration prior to the start of a formal proceeding.
Really! Because clearly some stakeholders are more stakeholders than others, I filed a Petition for Intervention to get a foot in the door and notice of festivities:
So if you’re wondering what all this means, that it’s a little obfuscated between the lines, come on down to the Public Utilities Commission Planning Session. If you want to make comments either file them or bring written ones to hand out, because there’s no set time for public comments:
2:00 p.m. on Thursday February 26, 2015
Minnesota Public Utilities Commission
121 – 7th Place East, Suite 350, Large Hearing Room
St. Paul, MN 55101
Just filed Petition for Intervention in Xcel’s e21 Docket
February 4th, 2015
Yes, I’ve filed this under “Energy” “Disaster” because it’s a train wreck of a proposal, and I cannot believe people would buy into this… or sell out into this. What, you say? e21!
In December, Xcel filed this, and I swear, this was the heading:
REQUEST FOR PLANNING MEETING AND DIALOGUE ROADMAP FOR SUPPORTING THE e21 INITIATIVE
“Roadmap for SUPPORTING?” Really…
So what is it? It’s a lot of whining about how hard it is to be a utility and that things are changing. Ummmmm… yeah. As if Xcel didn’t know that?
It feels to me like it’s another whack at “restructuring,” a/k/a deregulation, and a “we’re too big to fail” argument. And as before with “restructuring,” everyone’s getting in line, jumping on the bandwagon.
Listen to this recommendation:
(J)1. Encourage the use of, and give additional weight to, settlement agreements among parties, as long as the Commission determines that the agreements are in the public interest.
Really…
And now that we’ve permitted and built all this excess transmission capacity, they’re whining about under-utilization… can you believe it? Check this recommendation:
(N) Identify and develop opportunities to reduce customer costs by improving overall grid efficiency. In Minnesota, the total electric system utilization is approximately 55 percent (average demand divided by peak demand), thus providing an opportunity to reduce system costs by better utilizing existing system assets (e.g., generation, wires, etc.).
This sounds like the best opening to get into the CapX and MVP dockets and get them revoked. Give me a break…
So I just filed this, we’re gonna do what we can:
Why file for intervention? Well, this thing is all about stakeholders, and argues that, hey, look, all the stakeholders agree so just do it. Ummmm… right… and just who are the stakeholders? Those who have made those agreements with them in the past that got us right where we are today, DOH! What a fine mess you’ve gotten us into… let’s not do it yet again!
e21 Initiative — Xcel is at it again, yet another scam
December 27th, 2014
Xcel Energy has filed its “e21_Initiative_Phase_I_Report_2014: Charting a Path to a 21st Century Energy System in Minnesota as a part of a filing entitled “INITIAL FILING–REQUEST FOR PLANNING MTG AND DIALOGUE IN SUPPORT OF E21 INITIATIVE” (now PUC Docket 14-1055) in which they make a request for consideration at a Public Utilities Commission planning meeting:
Request for Planning Mtg and Dialogue – Roadmap to Support e21 Initiative
It’s not just Xcel, but they’re the ringleaders filing the request. So what is this and why support it? Well, first, let’s look at the basic plan — “stakeholders” and Xcel are proposing things be done differently. Why? Well, here’s an egregious example. How about circumventing all that pesky criteria that they must meet to get a Certificate of Need, and we know how hard that is to prove up need when there is none… so will someone tell me what the relationship is between “use of, and give additional weight to, settlement agreements among the parties” and criteria for a Commission on anything, be it a Certificate of Need or a Rate Case?
Can you believe that? But wait, how many Certificate of Need applications have ever been denied? Oh well, maybe it makes them work at it too hard to fabricate some need claim? And we know how rate cases have been going lately, not exactly in a way that Xcel wants!
Another points they’re looking for:
Don’t want those pesky intervenors in individual cases, after all. Multiple dockets for multiple projects, how on earth could people receive notice, participate and find representation in this scenario? And how about not doing anything until they’ve addressed the 09-845 “Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines” docket that’s been languishing for five years now?
And look who the “stakeholders” are, and clearly some are more equal than others. Look who’s involved, the same utility interests, or the toadies that have sold out to the utility interests:
Note that not one of these “stakeholders” have bothered to join, participate, attend, or file comments on the PUC rulemaking for Minn. R. Ch. 7849 Certificate of Need and 7850 Site or Route Permt. None of them bothered to weigh in on the Office of Administrative Hearings Minn. R. Ch. 1400 and 1405 Rulemaking trial balloon either (it’s on hold, and comments have not been published and I had to file a FOIA Request to get the Comments of others).
And given what Gov. Dayton had floated as his trial ballon, it gets a little scary:
What is Gov. Dayton thinking?
AAAARGH! Anyway, back to the “stakeholders.” Utility toadies all… except I don’t know of toadying on the part of Ron Elwood, who’s often been participating on behalf of ratepayers in ratecases, and did a great report on nuclear ages ago. But the vast majority are either utility employees or have been a clear benefactor of “agreements” with utilities and are actively advocating positions beneficial to utilities, a revolving door of personnel and employers. Mikey Bull’s been on every side of this multi-party love-fest, Betsy Engelking too. Beth Soholt and Matt Schuerger, then of the Waltons and ME3, are the ones who asked 7 or 8 of us likely intervenors “what would it take for you to approve this project” just before the SW MN 345 kV transmission line 01-1958 docket was applied for, searching for a sell-out but not offering anything or disclosing what exactly they were getting:
$8.1 Million Wind on Wires grant from McKnight/Energy Foundation
And looking back on some of the deals… for example:
This “Merger Stipulation” shows the beginning of not just the wind promotion but the transmission toadyism:
Who can forget the 01-1958 SW MN 345 kV 4 Certificates of Need docket, where parties, well, SOME parties, were actively encourage to “negotiate” by then ALJ and now PUC Chair Heydinger, and Crocker and Krikava were so busy winking at each other?
Then on p. 1 of the Commission’s Order:
Throughout that proceeding, ALJ, now PUC Chair Heydinger, encouraged certain parties to negotiate, and negotiate they did and a couple of settlements occurred at that time, one was the Community Wind agreement incorporated into that docket, and the other the TRANSLink agreement:
And shortly thereafter, let’s not forget the dough to promote transmission — once more with feeling:
$8.1 Million Wind on Wires grant from McKnight/Energy Foundation
Then we have these same folks at the legislature lobbying for the Transmission Omnibus Bill from Hell giving Xcel everything they ever wanted:
Well, apparently not everything they wanted, because now they want more. We saw how promotion of transmission worked on this ITC Midwest MN/IA 345 kV case. And don’t forget, the Walton’s Bill Grant is now Deputy Commissioner of Commerce in charge of Energy permitting and “environmental review,” and the Walton’s Nancy Lange is now on the Public Utilities Commission.
Wonder what kind of review their “e21 Initiative” will get!
Where is the public interest in this?
MP’s HVDC Modernization – WOLF Comment
March 29th, 2024
Yesterday was the deadline for “Public Comments” so here are the World Organization for Landowner Freedom (WOLF) Comments:
Corporate welfare for Blue Water Farms?!!
May 8th, 2023
At all times, keep the “fiduciary responsibility” mantra going — the City Council’s primary job is fiduciary responsibility for the city.
Here’s the Blue Water Farms presentation, 5/2/2023, so I guess it’s from the private invite-only meeting held last week at Smokin’ Oak:
What handouts is Blue Water Farms looking for? Shouldn’t everyone be concerned when the CEO of Blue Water Farm, Clarence Bischoff, was CEO of the Riverbend Market Cooperative, which defaulted on the Port Authority loan, and left other investors hanging in the lurch? (I’m still waiting on the Data Practices Act request, but it’s my understanding that the loan was in default, some recouped from sale of assets, and over $20,000 written off — will post when this info is received.)
What handouts from Red Wing city coffers is Blue Water Farms looking for? Who knows… the proposal isn’t public — YET. Their recent offer to “buy” the property is not public, and was rejected by the Port Authority because it didn’t meet their criteria:
It’s my belief that the Port Authority requirements for consideration of a sale were established 15 years ago, and haven’t been amended — pay particular attention to the second page. Am I missing something here, or do these requirements still apply?
What? The “offfer” is not public? The supporters, coincidentally they’re the vocals proponents of Recall City Hall (here’s the wayback of the Recall site, which has been disappeared), are claiming the City won’t make the offer public. Ummmm, hello?!?! That’s not on the City. Whether or not information is public is up to the party at issue. In this case, just like with ejected Chief Pohlman, the one with the power to disclose is the party at issue — it was Pohlman then, and he chose not to disclose.
In this case, DOH, it’s Blue Water Farms that has the power to disclose. So do it, Blue Water Farm, disclose your “offer.” Let’s make sure people know what we’re talking about. Folks aren’t talking about the handouts you want, so what else is there we need to know?
There’s a lot we need to know, and don’t have that information. It’s clear that the Recall City Hall folks loudly supporting Blue Water Farms, without knowledge of the issues and/or with select inside knowledge, apparently didn’t learn anything about confidentiality and who has the power of disclosure from the Pohlman and Recall City Hall fiasco. Earth to Mars — want disclosure? Get on Blue Water Farms to disclose!
Why is Port Authority involved? Simple… The City Council has delegated “economic development” and the vetting of proposals to the Port Authority. The current fracas involves a Blue Water “offer” for the property, made April 27, 2023, and addressed at the Port Authority meeting May 2 (the same day, probably same time, as the private Blue Water meeting at Smokin’ Oak!). Listen to the Port’s meeting:
Port Authority video: https://redwingmn.portal.civicclerk.com/event/3104/media
Once more with feeling, the Port Authority findings in denial of the offer (~2:22 in video):
What does the Council have to say about these points? How is any decision by the Council possible, other than to bounce it back to the Port, or deny based on these points?
Meanwhile, the internet is full of pleadings and requests for Red Wing residents to swamp the City Council with “SELL THE PROPERTY TO BLUE WATER NOW!” This makes no sense. There’s been no information on the offer provided. So far, just presentations by Blue Water, and no vetting, no verification, NO DUE DILIGENCE.
Those pushing for this sale, who again just happen to be the Recall City Hall folks, claim that under the Charter the City has authority to buy and sell property, and yes, the Charter does authorize property sales and purchases by the Council:
What they don’t address is the Council’s delegation to the Port Authority. Even more significant, they don’t address the Port Authority process, used for the Bauer Built building, and so clearly laid out at the recent Port Authority and City Council joint workshop, and again in the Port Authority meeting (linked here again). The Council delegated authority to the Port Authority, which is doing its job — watch that Port meeting video.
One of the vocal atadvocates has even said that she had never heard of any archeological issues! Nevermind that this has been discussed ad nauseum at Port Authority and Council meetings and workshops, there’s a Memorandum of Understanding with Prairie Island Indian Community, and that a consultant has been selected to perform the work. Seems they don’t care about protection of the mounds, and that they don’t care about our relationship with Prairie Island Indian Community, and they don’t give a rodent’s rump about upholding the MOU (and to which the Port and Council have held fast). And I heard first hand at the joint Port and Council workshop the willingness of those stridently pushing for a sale NOW that they’d want it sold prior to completing of the archeological study, and would even support turning over that responsibility to the buyers, contrary to the MOU! Unreal… And again, thankfully the Port and the Council recognize the MOU.
And again, there’s also misinformation, disinformation, and/or willful ignorance of state open meeting law and disclosure regarding property sales. See Minnesota Statute 13D.05, Sub. 3:
What will the City Council do? Tune in! To join this meeting via Webex, click this link and type in the password 2023. To join via telephone, please dial (415) 655-0001. Enter access code 2551 442 7582 and password 2023 when prompted.
Willful, intentional, abdication of and failure to exercise fiduciary responsibility, failure to complete due diligence, vetting, verification…
M-A-L-F-E-A-S-A-N-C-E
