Enbridge files to withdraw Sandpiper applications!
September 1st, 2016
YES! It took them a month from their announcement, but finally, Enbridge has filed to withdraw the Sandpiper pipeline Certificate of Need and Route applications, and has asked to suspend the contested case and EIS process in the meantime.
There is a 14 day window to “object” to this Certificate of Need withdrawal, and a 10 day window to address the Motion to suspend contested case.
Now’s the time to say “WITHDRAW, WITHDRAW WITH PREJUDICE!” Now’s the time to say “WITHDRAW ALL RELATED APPLICATIONS” because there are so many applications for transmission lines for pumping stations, i.e., the Clearbrook Transmission Line!
And then sometime after the Comment period ends, PUC staff will issue “Briefing Papers” and then the Commission will schedule a meeting to address this, with at least 10 days notice. Expect, then, at least a month before the PUC acts.
Now, about that Line 3 replacement project…
Settlement? PUC says “show your work!”
August 29th, 2016
Xcel Energy’s rate case just received another interesting twist — a request of the PUC that the parties to the “settlement agreement” show their work! I love it when that happens.
PUC staff wants detailed information about how they reached the numbers they did, how the settlement relates to each of the parties initial positions and testimony, etc., to “show your work!” The PUC staff is requesting this information so that the Commission can determine whether to accept, modify, or reject the partial settlement agreement. And note that the parties are mostly those e21Participants who signed off on Xcel’s Exe21_Initiative scam.
GOOD! Take a close look, PUC!
To review the filings in this docket, go to this PUC SEARCH DOCUMENTS PAGE and search for docket “15-826.”
Sandpiper EIS on HOLD!
August 26th, 2016
The Department of Commerce has hit the brakes on Sandpiper Pipeline and Line 3 Replacement Projects “until such time as Enbridge makes clear its intentions about the projects, or until we receive further direction from the Commission.”
Here’s the letter from Bill Grant:
20168-124424-01_Commerce_EIS Scope Decision Document on HOLD
And the guts of it:
YES!!! Now, about those transmission lines proposed for pumping stations related to these projects????
Dept. of Health & 3M’s PFC/PFOA contamination
August 23rd, 2016
3M has gotten away with poisoning the water of Minnesota, and the Dept. of Health has taken some protective and/or remedial measures, but it’s not nearly enough. Isn’t it a wake-up call that we need a “Drinking Water Health Advisory” in this Land of 10,000 Lakes? Minnesota’s “Pollution Control Agency” has not been proactive on this, and we’ve known about 3M’s contamination for how long? This is why we need the EPA! The EPA is leading the charge, and Minnesota’s Department of Health (MDH), as above, has “responded” to the EPA Advisories.
80 Washington County homes will get bottled water as state reviews new pollution rules
In part:
The Dept. of Health page:
MDH Response to EPA Health Advisory for PFOS and PFOA
From the EPA’s page:
Basic Information
- Fact Sheet on PFOA and PFOS Drinking Water Health Advisories (May 2016)
- BLOG: Science Guides Public Health Protection for Drinking Water by Joel Beauvais
Technical Information
- FR Notice on the Health Advisories for PFOA and PFOS (May 25, 2016)
- 2016 PFOA Health Advisory
- 2016 PFOA Health Effects Support Document
- 2016 PFOS Health Advisory
- 2016 PFOS Health Effects Support Document
- 2016 EPA Response to Peer Review Comments
Provisional Health Advisories and Draft Health Effects Documents
Technical documents
- 2009 Provisional Health Advisory
- 2014 Draft Health Effects Document for Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA)
- 2014 Draft Health Effects Document for Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS)
- Peer Reviewer Summary Report: External Peer Review of EPA’s Draft Health Effects Documents for Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS)
Peer Review
Protesting, defending 2nd Amendment rights?
August 22nd, 2016
-
White Lives Matter group protests outside NAACP in Houston’s Third Ward
-
White Lives Matter protest staged outside Houston NAACP office
-
Armed ‘White Lives Matter’ Group Protests Outside Houston NAACP
-
‘White Lives Matter’ Stages Armed Protest Outside NAACP
Can’t make this stuff up. I wish they’d read their “pocket Constitution” and amendments. How is NAACP related to their 2nd Amendment rights? Let’s see a 1,000 word essay, due tomorrow!
Yesterday there are armed white folks in Houston, Texas, sporting guns and waving Confederate flags:
Really… It’s a crucial distinction that they’re talking about “2nd Amendment rights” and not “1st Amendment rights” here, that their focus is on guns, and not speech. At what point is inflammatory “speech” of flags and open carry in front of NAACP headquarters criminal incitement or terroristic threats?
Notice the “14 WORDS” sign. Those “14 WORDS” are a fundamental slogan of white supremacists, originally from David Lane, The Order, The Silent Brotherhood, Bruders Schweigen: “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children.” He also authored the “88 Precepts” while in jail serving his 190 year sentence. Words like this should not be taken lightly. The actions of Lane’s group included the machine-gun mowing down of Alan Berg, Jewish radio talk show host, armored car robberies and counterfeiting, racketeering, and conspiracy. He died in jail.
Incitement is a difficult concept, much is allowed, and in reviewing Constitutional law on incitement, the key is to be vague, to use inference, to speak of possibilities, and that’s OK. Urges to action NOW is another matter. So thus far, these “protesters” (again, what exactly are they “protesting?”) seem to be within bounds, unlike Drumpf (one protester yesterday was wearing a Trump hat), who has gone over the edge with direct, targeted incitement:
Is Donald Trump inciting violence? He might be. – Slate
Texas Penal Code § 22.07. Terroristic Threat
I’d be afraid to go to work that day if I worked at NAACP HQ, but likely they’re closed on Sunday, so that threat charge is then likely dodged.
Are the many people in the U.S. killed lately by white supremacists being considered, is it being taken into account?
How is the NAACP related to the protesters 2nd Amendment rights? Houston, we have a problem…








