Legalectric

There was a big turn out tonight at Urland Lutheran Church, where at least 100 people interested in the Zip Rail joined Sen. Matt Schmit and DOT Commissioner Charlie Zelle to hash it out.

This project is so “not happening.”  The state has pulled its funding, Olmsted County has pulled its funding, and the North American High Speed Rail Group is on its own (with no money).

County puts spike in Zip Rail project

MnDOT suspends its work on Zip Rail project

The last “Project Schedule” was published in March, 2015, 11 months ago to the date, and from that, it’s obvious this project is going nowhere, because nothing has happened since:

It seems many people want certainty, want this to END!  They want confirmation that this thing is dead and buried and won’t reappear… but that’s not how these things happen.  It’s moribund, “lacking in vitality or vigor.”  In my humble professional opinion which I voiced at the meeting, based on over 20 years of wrestling with so many ill-advised and pipedream projects, there are two things to do:

• Write Comments on the Alternatives Analysis Report and file them with everyone who had any connection with this project, so they’ll put them in the file with the Alternatives Analysis Report, to “inform the record” and be found if it should somehow be resurrected.  DOT says to send Comments to: webmaster.dot@state.mn.us

Sen. Matt Schmit says the link for comments should be: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/ziprail/comment-form.html

I would also send copies to:

Dan Krom
Director
651-366-3193
daniel.krom@state.mn.us

Praveena Pidaparthi
Planning Director
651-366-3199
praveena.pidaparthi@state.mn.us

Garneth Peterson
Environmental Coordinator
651-366-3615
garneth.peterson@state.mn.us

charlie.zelle@state.mn.us

sen.matt.schmit@senate.mn and rep.tim.kelley@house.mn

• Put feet up, deep breathe, move on, and keep a casual eye open in case it pops up again.

There’s nothing that can be done to force a more certain resolution, and it requires a bit of trust (and maybe experience with public process?) that it’s stopped, is without funding, and that’s that.  Learn to live with it, it’s like a remission diagnosis, because there’s nothing to be gained from spending energy and effort being worried and fretful wondering if it’s going to come back, it’s time to live life.

What’s Chuck Michael going to do now?  What could possibly follow the Mesaba Project “pipedream of green and clean” and then this flop called Zip Rail?!?!

Hot off the press, received from the DOT yesterday:

Environmental Impact Statement suspension

MnDOT has announced the suspension of work on the Rochester-Twin Cities Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan and Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (Zip Rail) process that had a Final Scoping Decision Document issued on Jan. 19, 2015.

This project is a voluntary EIS under state environmental regulations. Public funding constraints, as well as private sector actions to undertake a similar project, have led to this decision. As the Responsible Governmental Unit, MnDOT, along with its partner Olmsted County Regional Railroad Authority, determined that the most appropriate step is to suspend the Zip Rail EIS at this time.

MnDOT is also notifying interested individuals and agencies that participated in the environmental review process about the suspension of the EIS.

For more information about Zip Rail in Minnesota, visit MnDOT’s Zip Rail website.

And in the RW bEagle, here’s Alan in the background!

MnDOT commissioner tackles questions on high-speed rail

By Michael Brun on Feb 17, 2016 at 12:05 p.m.

CANNON FALLS — State Transportation Commissioner Charlie Zelle fielded a barrage of questions Tuesday night from a packed crowd of southeastern Minnesota residents anxious about proposed high-speed rail projects between the Twin Cities and Rochester.

Zelle and other Minnesota Department of Transportation officials took part in a town hall-style meeting hosted by state Sen. Matt Schmit in Urland Lutheran Church. The meeting was called in response to public concern over the recently shelved Zip Rail project and a separate proposal by a private rail developer.

The Minnesota-based North American High Speed Rail Group contacted MnDOT about a year ago to pitch its idea for rights to study and build a privately funded line connecting the two metropolitan centers, Zelle said Tuesday in his opening remarks.

“It was frankly a little vague, and we were very reluctant,” Zelle said of the proposal.

MnDOT announced Jan. 27 it had issued permits to NAHSR to study the feasibility of an elevated high-speed rail line following the Highway 52 corridor — which Zelle said should form a clearer picture of what the company envisions.

MnDOT and Olmsted County Regional Railroad Authority meanwhile suspended study on the public Zip Rail project last month due to a lack of funds and “legislative appetite,” Zelle said.

Both projects drew strong criticism from several audience members who questioned the impact of a new rail line on area farmland and whether eminent domain would be used to construct it.

“We’re not standing here just because we don’t like an idea; we’re standing here in defense of ourselves and in defense of our communities and in defense of our homes,” said Heather Arndt with the grassroots group Citizens Concerned About Rail Line.

Zelle said any high-speed rail line — private or public — would require an environmental review process with opportunities for residents to make comments.

MnDOT also announced Tuesday it will include public comments in the state record alongside a Zip Rail alternatives analysis report released just before the project was suspended. The document, which identifies eight potential routes for Zip Rail, can be revisited in the future if interest in the project returns.

Details for submitting a comment can be found at www.dot.state.mn.us/ziprail/contacts.html.

Today the MPCA announced several new public “listening sessions” regarding the Clean Power Plan.  There are no rules yet proposed, but there have been many “stakeholder” meetings thus far, listed below. Note there’s one in Rochester on March 9.

And because of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, it’s “up in the air,” though Gov. Dayton has pledged to carry on.

North Dakota v. EPA, et al._020916_15A793

Meetings from today forward are an open house at 5:30 p.m. and the meeting beginning at 6:30 p.m.:

Upcoming meeting locations:

• February 16:  Bemidji State University, the American Indian Resource Center’s Gathering Place, Bemidji (event flyer here)
• February 23:  University of Minnesota–Duluth, Swenson Civil Engineering Building, Rooms 265/231, Duluth (event flyer here — updated with the full building name)
• February 24: Southwest Minnesota State University Conference Center, Upper Ballroom, Marshall (event flyer here — updated with the new date)
• March 2:  The Wellstone Center, St. Paul (event flyer here)
• March 8:  Minneapolis Urban League, Minneapolis (event flyer here)
• March 9:  Centerstone Plaza Hotel, Rochester (event flyer here)

There will be a rulemaking, but they’re not planning on forming an Advisory Group (which I think should be done), so that means that when they present the rule, it’ll pretty much be a done deal, SO that’s why the stakeholder meetings and info listed below is important, and that’s why you should go to these meetings and speak up.

If you have questions about the rulemaking or anything else regarding the Clean Power Plan, sign up for email notices through GovDelivery.Contact.  For questions about the status of the MPCA’s rulemaking contact Katie Izzo at katie.izzo@state.mn.us or by phone at 651-757-2595.

Clean Power Plan stakeholder group info:

Look what just appeared in the inbox:

20162-118280-01_OAH_Letter to Chamber of Commerce

And here’s what the ALJ in the Xcel Energy rate  (PUC Docket GR-15-826) had to say to the Chamber:

He’s still in jail and looking for public defender… how would he qualify?

Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy to remain jailed, asks for attorney

Here’s the Complaint:

Complaint-Cliven-Bundy-02112015

Here we go, thanks to Xcel Energy and Office of Administrative Hearings, based on the bias and double standards for participation and obstructions to intervention in the latest Xcel Energy rate case (PUC Docket GR-15-826).

Yes, Intervention in the rate case denied again:

20162-118122-01_Denial #2_Overland-NoCapX Intervention

And I quote:

Further, the Petition states that purposes for which No CapX 2020 was “specifically formed” (fn omitted) was to participate in dockets which are now closed, raising the question of why No CapX 2020 continues to exist.

H-E-L-L-O?!?!?!  This rate case docket is all about shifting the CapX 2020 and MISO MVP 17 project portfolio transmission costs from one scheme to another.   I specifically cited all the references to CapX 2020, MISO MVP, and transmission.

Here’s what has gone before…

Intervention Petition II

Xcel objection to second petition to intervene

Overland-NoCapX_Intervention Petition 2

Intervention Petition I

20161-117574-01_Order Denying Intervention Petition 1

No CapX 2020_Response to Xcel’s Objection

20161-116957-02_Xcel’s Objection to Intervention

NoCapX 2020 and Carol A. Overland_Intervention Petition Packet

And in a parallel track, note the double standard in pleading.

• Note that Xcel has objected only to the Overland/No CapX 2020 intervention.
• Note that Xcel has not objected to those who participated in the “e21 Initiative” which is the basis for this rate case “multi-year rate plan” and transmission shift.
• Note how little the other “intervenors” say.
• Note they do not state their interests.
• Note they do not state how their interests are different from general ratepayers.
• Note they do not state how their interests will not be represented by OAG and Commerce.

OAH has approved Interventions of “The Commercial Group,” “Suburban Rate Authority,” and “City of Mineapolis.”  I’m sure the approval of “Clean Energy Organizations” will soon follow, despite the lack of specific pleading and the apparent conflict with one “attorney” representing so many organizations that either have differing positions and interests, or which are adequately represented by other organizations and don’t need to intervene… funny how this double standard works…

Read the Petitions:

Petition to Intervene of the Commercial Group

Petition to Intervene of Suburban Rate Authority

Petition to Intervene 0f City of Minneapolis

Petition to Intervene 0f “Clean Energy Organizations”

Petition to Intervene of MN Chamber of Commerce

Check out each of these petitions.  Look at the pleading, what’s stated, and as importantly, what is NOT stated.  What are their interests?  How are the “interests” different than general ratepayers in their class?  How are their interests not represented by Office of Attorney General and/or MN Dept. of Commerce?

So what to do?  Participating in the public hearing is not sufficient, and if that’s the limited offering, well, there’s no Discovery for a public participant.  What’s next?  Fight for the privilege of an unfunded intervention, as if there’s nothing else to do?  The issues raised by Overland/No CapX 2020 will not be addressed otherwise.  And thos overt quashing of participation is not consistent with the “public” in “Public Utilities Commission” and the Commission’s mandate.

Meanwhile, FERC just denied the 2010 Petition for Intervention too in the case regarding the cost allocation for these CapX and MISO MVP projects, yes, that took them 5 1/2 years to do, so why now?  Check this out:

FERC Order – Docket ER09-1431 (p. 8)

Odd that should come up now… naaaah, not really.