Legalectric

Remember Clive Bundy and his Nevada stand-off when the feds decided to evict him, and his cows, from BLM land they had leased but stopped paying the lease and owes over $1 million?

Now his son Ammon Bundy, from Phoenix, has organized his militia and gone up to Burns, Oregon (temp around 9 today!) for another stand-up/stand-off/stand-down over Dwight and Steven Hammond.  another federal land lease issue, where they were convicted of arson, burning the BLM land, and then a federal judge determined that their sentence was not sufficient, and ordered them to report back to prison this coming Monday.  Ammon Bundy has issued a “call to arms” which sounds a lot like inciting violence to me.  From what I’ve been reading, people are ignoring that this was LEASED land, they did not own it, it was not there, it is OURS, as in “we the people” ours!

Eastern Oregon Ranchers Convicted of Arson Resentenced …

When you check out the videos and photos, note the “111%” on T-shirts and signs.

Militia takes over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters

Thing is, Dwight and Steven Hammond want nothing to do with Bundy and his militia, the Community doesn’t want them around…  they “stand with the Hammonds” but Hammonds not so much…

Who Wants A Burns, Oregon Standoff? Not The Sheriff, The Ranchers, Or Even Cliven Bundy

Oregon ranching case spurs anti-government sentiment

The Hammonds have not welcomed the Bundys’ help.

“Neither Ammon Bundy nor anyone within his group/organization speak for the Hammond Family,” the Hammonds’ lawyer W. Alan Schroeder wrote to Sheriff David Ward. But Hammonds don’t have clean hands, going beyond the federal crimes for which they’ve been convicted and are now serving time:
Showdown in the Malheur marshes: the origins of rancher terrorism in Burns, Oregon

What if your militia showdown isn’t wanted?

A local resident organized a meeting to address the militia, learn about their plans:

Burns residents confront militia over fears of violence

… This was no government-led meeting. Brandy Mosher, a local resident worried about her community, arranged the meeting, promoting it on social media. On a frigid holiday evening, about 60 people showed up. She just wanted people to talk to each other instead of resorting to rumors.

There was a protest this afternoon in Burns, Oregon:

Militia holds march, rally in Burns

After the protest, Bundy brothers and other supporters took over the National Forest Reserve office, and they want to give it back to loggers, miners and the ranchers:

Armed militia, incl Bundy bros, occupy forest reserve HQ in Oregon, call ‘US patriots’ to arms

Armed militia, including Bundy brothers, occupy forest reserve HQ in Oregon, call “US patriots” to arms

Convoy takes off from Bend to protest ranchers’ convictions

“Northern States Power d/b/a Xcel Energy” filed a rate case with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, PUC Docket 15-826.  You can see all the filings — GO HERE TO PUC SEARCH PAGE — and search for docket 15-826.

Prehearing Conference

Monday, January 4 at 1:30 p.m.

PUC Large Hearing Room – 3rd Floor

121 – 7th Place E.

St. Paul, MN  55101

Xcel is asking for a big increase, and they admit it’s transmission driven.  So yes, I’m interested, you betcha.  No CapX 2020 and Carol A. Overland (as individual) have intervened:

No CapX 2020 – Overland_InterventionPacket

So far, here’s what’s been happening:

A rough schedule has been proposed by Commerce DER, which will be hashed out at the Prehearing Conference, and probably altered as the case moves forward:

The PUC Staff Briefing Papers for last Thursday’s meeting:

Staff Briefing Papers_1_201512-116122-01

Staff Briefing PapersAddeudum_1_201512-116402-01

Staff Briefing Papers Addendum_2_ PI Decision Options_201512-116402-02

Staff Briefing Papers_Tuma Option_201512-116402-03

Here’s the webcast:  Video – should be good for 90 days from Dec. 10

Video – Docket 15-662 — Rate Design — video at 00:15:00 – 02:20:00

Video – Docket 15-826 — Rate Case — starts at 02:20:00

There has been one other intervention — “The Commercial Group” which is the biggies, like Walmart.  There have been several Notice of Appearances filed, but not interventions. ???

The AG’s Office has been the only one filing challenging comments thus far, which is why I have felt the need to barge in.  The “usual suspects” have been part of the e21 nonsense, and other agreements in the past that have both compromised their position and not been in the public interest.  Here are the AG Comments thus far.  RUD is dead on about NSP/Xcel’s overstatements, and those proven overstatements should be sufficient to grind this thing to a halt and get on more realistic terms:

OAG_RUD_Comments_11-20-2015_201511-115843-01

OAG_RUD_Comemnts_InitialComments_201511-115670-01

This is just Minnesota.  Obviously there will be a similar proceeding in Wisconsin in the very near future.

And given this rate case is transmission driven, the linkage between the FERC approved MISO rate and the reduction of return on equity in the FERC docket will have to be addressed:

HOT OFF THE PRESS (thanks to Julie Risser for the heads up!): There’s a very long and intense FERC decision that has an impact on utilities’ return on equity allowed under FERC approved MISO rates — lower return on equity for all that transmission they built that we don’t need.  The utilities fight to build this transmission, conspire with MISO to push through an egregious rate to FERC for approval, and FERC rubberstamps it.  Business as usual!  But noooooo, 12.38% is not OK:

FERC EL-14-12-002_ALJ Order

Look who brought the Complaint (you might want to ask yourself why the state AGs weren’t the ones filing the initial Complaint, where are the ratepayer advocacy groups, and of course, where are the “environmental” groups?):

To see the complete docket, all the filings, go to the FERC LIBRARY and search for docket EL14-12-002.

This goes back a ways, the gears turn slowly at FERC.  Over a year ago, a Complaint was filed at FERC seeking to lower the 12.38% return on transmission:

Complaint_20131112-5303(28921346)

Read today’s STrib article here (and thanks to David Schaffer for posting the link to the Order):

Midwest consumer advocates win victory on electric grid transmission rates

The issue, per the ALJ:

Here’s a more detailed look at the issues in the Complaint:

From my perspective, the issue is a lot more than that, because this transmission was built for a private purpose, that “lower production costs” is a benefit to the producer.  That market access is a benefit to the producer/seller and those buying wholesale to sell at ? price.  That this transmission for a private purpose is being built on the backs of landowners whose land is being impermissibly, unconstitutionally taken.  But that’s not going to be addressed here.  … sigh… oh well.

How do these rates compare with return granted by Minnesota’s PUC?  Here are the ask, interim and ultimate result for Xcel rate cases since 2005:

Who cares about this?  Anyone who lives in the MISO district should, and oh, has it expanded over the years:

And anyone looking at MISO Schedule 26A (updated every year) should care — this is how they’re apportioning costs among the utilities handling the many zones in MISO:

Yeah, it’s impossible to read — here’s the Excel spreadsheet (2014 version, this is updated annually):

Exhibit B_Schedule 26A Indicative Annual Charges_02262014

What is the impact of this scheme on ratepayers?  Who knows… it’s anyone’s guess.  For example, check the Badger Coulee transmission project (eastern part of CapX 2020 masterplan, from La Crosse to Madison) record about cost allocation, rate recovery, return on investment… Look at the testimony of Hodgeson (ATC) and Hoesly (NSP-Wisconsin).  Hodgson’s not exactly credible on the stand — when questioned about rate impacts on ratepayers, nada, he refused to address impacts on ratepayers, only that “benefits” will go to utilities:

Trying again:

So not only is this an issue in the FERC case, but this is an important issue in the current Minnesota rate case.  For filings on that, go to PUC Search Documents and search for docket 15-826.

Oh, the joys of this part-time job called health care.  After two 4 hour diagnostic sessions at the U of M (because couldn’t find dentist that would take a new UCare patient), and with help of a great dental student we had finally a “Treatment Plan,” I learned that the U of M does not work with South County, the new UCare replacement.  Utterly screwed.

And today I get a notice that I would have no coverage at all because I hadn’t selected (which I HAD, and chose the wrong plan!).  The Notice of Health Plan Enrollment said that I could “change to a different health plan at any time, for cause, including lack of access to services and providers…”

YES!

So today after 3.5 hours of fartin’ around, facebook and reading the STrib, and filing all this medical crap in the medical files while on hold, I’ve now got Medica coverage, coverage which is accepted by U of M confirmed by both Medica and U of M, and now have the joy of yet another appointment, appointment booked, this time for actual, and not imagined, torture in the dental chair.

There’s something very sick about being gleeful to get coverage straightened out for such pain.

Here’s the decision:

Line 67 ruling Dec 2015

This decision is important because it is not just this pipeline — because the basis for it is the Presidential Permit, and the notion that issuance of a Presidential Permit may not be appealed applies to the Presidential Permit for the (Not-so) Great Northern Transmission Line too!