Legalectric

Lots of Comments filed today for Scoping of the Environmental Impact Statement for the MN Energy CON, both Certificate of Nee and Routing dockets (E02/CN_22-131 and TL-22-132).

Filed for NoCapX 2020 today — EIS Scoping Comments and Attachments:

Yesterday I saw notice that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is working on an amendment to the Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) plant in Red Wing. Here’s the notice:

It’s regarded as a “major source” under the federal rules. At that plant, they make oil from soybeans, however there’s also “new raw materials for processing,” and more:

Not only is the ADM plant regarded as a “major source,” the “permit action is a major amendment” so notice has been sent out to the public. There are three options for weighing in on this:

This is the chart of projected emissions in tons:

How many pounds per year of emissions does that mean? It doesn’t say, and it should. I’ve added tons per year, and left the blanks for TOTAL because they’ve not told us what the annual emissions are, just the increase!

Maybe that’s in the Draft Air Permit?

Or maybe it’s in the Technical Support Document?

This is not my area of expertise — Alan Muller, it’s all yours!! My take is that since most of us really don’t know what this means and can’t make meaningful comments, we should have an informational meeting so we know what we’re talking about. That’s #2 on the list of participation options:

If you’d like them to hold an information meeting, here’s what they expect to see in that request, in addition to points 1, 2, and 3 above:

Public meetings are possible, though don’t hold your breath on a contested case, I’ve been involved in some pretty intense matters before the MPCA, and I’ve yet to see a contested case request granted. Public hearings have happened, so that’s something else to request if you’re wanting to see/hear public involvement.

Send written comments on the draft permit, and FYI, comments should be specific, pointing out things on specific pages, specific tables, and what they mean, what’s not included that should be, etc., again, be sure to address points 1, 2, and 3:

Get to work!!!

Trump’s got a lot more than toilet paper sticking now. Judge Engoron’s Decision and Order is a joy to read. It’s about time this house of cards starts crashing down.

And the short version:

A while back I sent a Data Practices Act Request to the MPCA about the status of Xcel’s Red Wing garbage burner. It’s spewing, spewing, spewing, and its permit expired in 2009!

That’s right, 2009!

What are they doing, if anything? Here’s the link to the docs in answer to that DPA request:

https://app.sharebase.com/#/folder/103884/share/185-gS8vhKRssDHUuzm1TQiuZnSIp-s

This link is good for 90 days, so better download. It’s a LOT, and hard to tell what’s what, and as we all know, there are things hiding in there.

Yes, World Organization for Landowner Freedom (W.O.L.F.) has been denied intervenor status AGAIN.

First some background:

W.O.L.F. Intervention DENIED, sooooo…

January 22nd, 2024

Motion for Certification of W.O.L.F. Intervention

January 27th, 2024

And that Motion for certification? DENIED!

And worse, the ALJ misconstrues the rules with a not-so-subtle attempt at limiting cross-examination by this “participant” to passing questions through the judge!

Here’s what the ALJ said:

Moreover, the denial of the Petition did not deprive W.O.L.F. the opportunity to participate as a member of the public in the contested case, pursuant to Minn. R. 1400.6200, subp. 5, .7150 (2023), and 1405.0800 (2023), or from informally collaborating with and supporting other parties. Specifically, W.O.L.F. may file offer direct testimony in written form at or following the hearing and may cross-examine witnesses by submitting questions in writing to the Administrative Law Judge to ask them before or during the hearings.

The “submitting questions in writing to the Administrative Law Judge to ask them before or during the hearings” is for those who do not want to speak publicly! Really? Yup… let’s take a look at what the rules say, Minn. R. 1499.6200, Subp. 5, 7150; and Minn. R. 1405.0800, those he cited. First the Power Plant Siting Act rules as this docket falls under Power Plant Siting Act:

1405.0800 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.

At all hearings conducted pursuant to parts 1405.0200 to 1405.2800, all persons will be allowed and encouraged to participate without the necessity of intervening as parties. Such participation shall include, but not be limited to:

…

C. Questioning all persons testifying. Any person who wishes to cross-examine a witness but who does not want to ask questions orally, may submit questions in writing to the administrative law judge, who will then ask the questions of the witness. Questions may be submitted before or during the hearings.

Another rule cited:

Minn. R. 1400.6200. Subp. 5. Participation by public.

The judge may, in the absence of a petition to intervene, nevertheless hear the testimony and receive exhibits from any person at the hearing, or allow a person to note that person’s appearance, or allow a person to question witnesses, but no person shall become, or be deemed to have become, a party by reason of such participation. Persons offering testimony or exhibits may be questioned by parties to the proceeding.

And finally, Minn. R. 1400.7150, more limiting as it leaves participation to judge’s discretion:

It’s enough work to actively participate in a utility docket at the Public Utilities Commission, but to have to struggle to intervene, it’s contrary to the Commission’s charge:

216E.08 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.

Oh well… ONWARD!