Legalectric

Too late I learn about this — deadline for comments was June 20. Note this is an Environmental Assessment Worksheet, not an Alternative Urban Area Review (AUAR).

The official Minnesota Environmental Quality Board notice and published document can be found here. The City of Faribault also posted the document here.

https://www.ci.faribault.mn.us/DocumentCenter/View/11706/Archer-Datacenters-Faribault-Site—Draft-EAW—05-08-2025

This is billed as a 120MW project on 84.3 acres.

Looks like a lot of roofs for solar!

THESE THINGS ARE ALWAYS TOO BIG TO UPLOAD OR PASS AROUND VIA EMAIL.

Here it is, the ALJ Recommendation about additional casks for nuclear waste at Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant:

Short version – Xcel Energy gets what they want:

Chapter 12 – Parts strictly about data centers, also energy

Chapter 13 – Taxes – see Section 4, Subd. 42, amendment of 297.68, Subd. 42.

David Morris: 50 Years of Pioneering Work and Impact

Institute for Local Self-Reliance

Here’s a few youtubes to give you an idea of what David Morris was all about:

This is Part 1 of 11 parts, but the sound is hard to listen to:

I’ll never forget his day after day after day after day of testimony before the Senate Energy Committee circa ?? 1998 ?? on the problems with “highest and best use” of turkey shit and burning chicken shit as “biomass,” on and on and on as Chair Novak stalled to avoid dealing with the Prairie Island nuclear waste. Not that they paid attention to the turkey shit emissions, they only wanted to stall, and Morris did a tremendous job on the gross details. Utterly hilarious in a policy-nerd sort of way.

He was so supportive of the work I was doing, helped me keep focused, and keep on keeping’ on in those intense and never-ending transmission and nuclear dockets.

Here’s one example, my favorite and a fun one at that: When too many were claiming about transmission, “IT’S FOR WIND, IT’S FOR WIND,” a “writing by committee filing” from an informal group that he put together, a delightful transmission plan meant to stump the Public Utilities Commission. The purpose was to show that we don’t need no stinkin’ BIG transmission — that wind can be put on-line using a low voltage system — with support from a wide range of characters:

Buffalo Ridge Transmission Plan

Without David Morris’ guidance, no way would this have gained the traction it did, including Work Group input, a rulemaking, and additional meetings and extension of public comment about certification of transmission projects through the Biennial Transmission Plan (though the Commission’s point, I’m sure, was to assure that nothing like this was ever submitted again).

And as to the Buffalo Ridge Transmission Plan, stump them it did — took them a while to figure out a way to toss it in the circular file. And oh, they went through contortions — what they had to say was, from snippets from the Order (in full below):

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

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

And from the Commissions ultimate Order:

Yup, last night’s Red Wing Charter Commission’s meeting was “a happening.” That’s a video that everyone in RW City gov’t should watch, and it’d also be good for everyone who has a smidgin of interest in how government works and doesn’t work! This was a classic example of why we need observers at government meetings.

HERE’S THE VIDEO: Items 8.J. and 8.K. begin at ~1:01:40

No video earlier? True, but wait, there’s hope! “Yes, last night’s entire meeting was videotaped, but there was an initial mix-up with the way the audio and video matched up. Tomorrow morning, our AV Techs will be back at work and they will be re-uploading the video in the morning. They will not be in the office today due to the Juneteenth federal holiday. You should be able to view the video by early Friday afternoon.” And now it’s there to watch and listen.

Two agenda items with N-O-T-H-I-N-G in the packet, and no background info or proposal despite that I’d made three requests in writing:

At the meeting, no background info, no handout, not even a powerpoint!?!?! Only a meandering, circular “presentation” that made no sense.

The point of both of these efforts was to take power away from the City Council and transfer to the Council Administrator, but it took a lot to get that clarified. There was NO disclosure of the changes of role of Mayor, who typically presides over the meeting, and who has a vote on the Council (but NO veto power). Also, he did slip and disclose that most cities that use a Council/Manager system are statutory cities.

Short version, mindful that we are a Charter City with a weak Mayor system::

• 8.J. Take power to hire and fire away from City Council and transfer to Council Administration.

• 8.K. Change definition of City government to Council/Manager. In the examples I could find, in that style, the Mayor loses veto power, and gains power — presides over the Council and VOTES.

How stupid do you think we are? Well, we sure found out.

• 8.J. was set up to get more information for “discussion.”

• 8.K. was set aside on Motion by Tom Drazkowski, 2nd by Carol Overland and also to get background info — with this team, ahem… if Tom Drazkowski and I are agreeing on something, you’d better pay attention!

If either of these are on the agenda again, we need a solid proposal, background info, A CITY ATTORNEY OPINION, and preferably City Attorney at meeting.