Legalectric

Photo from news8000.com

And the good news is that it’s NOT Bakken BOOM! oil, only denatured alcohol and some empty car cars.  The evacuation has been lifted and people are returning.  The other good news is that this means they won’t be shipping on the Wisconsin side of the Mississippi anytime soon, with the associated bad news that then they’ll be shipping through Red Wing more often.

Some good photos here:

http://www.fox9.com/news/45812089-story

NOTE: There’s a Minneapolis CARS message below regarding the November 10th Mpls. City Council meeting.

From News8000:

Emergency crews on scene of 32-car train derailment north of Alma

From KSTP 5:

Train Derails in Wisconsin, Prompting Voluntary Evacuation

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

Here’s the Minneapolis CARS (Citizens Acting for Rail Safety) message:

Nov 10th -- Attention Minneapolis residents: Support 
a Strong Rail Safety Resolution!

Hello CARS network, as we reported last month, the 
City of Minneapolis is preparing a rail safety 
resolution that will come before the Transportation 
and Public Works committee on November 10th. We are 
encouraged from conversations with City Council 
members that the resolution will be a great first 
step forward and that the resolution is likely to 
pass the committee and the City Council. There is 
also understanding that this will be a living 
document that will need updating as more information 
is available. It is important that the City Council 
hear from us to know that the community is supportive 
of this important work. 

There are two ways you can do this:

1) Mark your calendars to attend the Minneapolis City 
Council Transportation & Public Works Committee meeting 
next Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 9:30 am in the Council 
Chamber, Room 317 of City Hall. If you are able to 
attend, please let us know by replying to this email. 
Comments will not be allowed, but your presence will be 
important. Please also plan to stay for a brief press 
conference that is being organized for approximately 
11:30 am. As the media reports this important success, 
it is important that we have as many people in attendance 
as possible showing community support.

2) Contact your Minneapolis City Council member to 
thank them for supporting a strong rail safety 
resolution. Call or Email them with some version of 
the following message, sharing your own personal 
story of living near the rails if you are willing.

I am concerned about the risks that freight trains 
carrying crude oil, ethanol and other hazardous 
materials pose to my neighborhood. I thank the City 
for its leadership in supporting a strong Rail Safety 
Resolution that will protect Minneapolis.

MINNEAPOLIS CITY COUNCIL CONTACT INFORMATION
Ward 1 - kevin.reich@minneapolismn.gov - (612)673-2201
Ward 2 - cam.gordon@minneapolismn.gov - (612)673-2202
Ward 3 - jacob.frey@minneapolismn.gov - (612)673-2203
Ward 4 - barbara.johnson@minneapolismn.gov - (612)673-2204
Ward 5 - blong.yang@minneapolismn.gov - (612)673-2205
Ward 6 - abdi.warsame@minneapolismn.gov - (612)673-2206
Ward 7 - lisa.goodman@minneapolismn.gov - (612)673-2207
Ward 8 - elizabeth.glidden@minneapolismn.gov - (612)673-2208
Ward 9 - alondra.cano@minneapolismn.gov - (612)673-2209
Ward 10 - lisa.bender@minneapolismn.gov - (612)673-2210
Ward 11 - john.quincy@minneapolismn.gov - (612)673-2211
Ward 12 - andrew.johnson@minneapolismn.gov - (612)673-2212
Ward 13 - linea.palmisano@minneapolismn.gov - (612)673-2213

Cars Contact Info:

Cathy Velasquez Eberhart
Citizens Acting for Rail Safety - Twin Cities
saferailstwincities@gmail.com
651-587-5356

on Facebook at: facebook.com/saferailstwincities

From the “What the Hell is Wrong with People” department:  The report of Jodie Marie Burchard-Risch’s assault of another customer at the Coon Rapids Applebee’s was pretty disturbing — Burchard-Risch started yelling at her, threw a drink on her and then smashed her in the face with a beer mug because she didn’t like that she wasn’t speaking English.  Clearly doesn’t get the concept that she doesn’t rule the world, and that her rights end at someone else’s nose.  It seems that the management at Applebee’s handled it well, tried to eject her, and then after the assault followed her until she was arrested.

There’s a gofundme site for Asma who was attacked.

Here’s something important — this Burchard-Risch woman is really a peach.  Check out all the alcohol and traffic charges and convictions.  This is at least a 2nd assault, and also likely alcohol is a factor here.  There’s an established pattern of behavior, and she’s someone in need of treatment.  She’s way off the charts:

Jodie Marie Burchard Risch – Minnesota Criminal Record

Hope the prosecutor and judge push for a stint in jail and a long probation and mandatory treatment.

There’s been a lot of news coverage:

Hot off the press,here at the Plains & Eastern EIS site!

Appendix Q contains the Comments and responses to those Comments:

EIS-0486: Final Environmental Impact Statement (Volume VII)

EIS-0486: Final Environmental Impact Statement (Volume VIII, File 1)

EIS-0486: Final Environmental Impact Statement (Volume VIII, File 2)

Here’s a very problematic statement from the intro letter:

Based on the information presented in the Final EIS, DOE has identified participation in the Project as its preferred alternative in the Final EIS.

Why?  Most improper in that the EIS is not supposed about a “preferred alternative,” which goes too far towards bias of a supposedly neutral party.  It’s pretty basic — the purpose of an EIS is to inform the record, and the decision makers, of the IMPACTS.  It is not a decisional document, it is not the basis for a recommendation.  Add to that the lack of a thorough evaluation of need, which, particularly in this case, is to be the deciding factor.  A project of this magnitude doesn’t go forward just because, or because the developers want it.  That’s not enough.  It’s about need.  If you search the Table of Contents, there is only one mention of “need” in the intro, talking about the “need” for an EIS, and there is one section in the text, entitled “Department of Energy Purpose and Need.”  There doesn’t seem to be any evaluation of need for the P-R-O-J-E-C-T!

Here ’tis:

Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Plains & Eastern Clean Line Transmission Project

And HERE’S a nearly verbatim cut and paste of their email, release of yet another FEIS from the Department of Energy:

Plains & Eastern EIS You are receiving this email because you signed up to receive information and updates about the Plains & Eastern EIS. Thank you for your interest in this project. The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Plains & Eastern Clean Line Transmission Project is now available The Final Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS–0486; Final EIS) is available on the project website at http://www.plainsandeasterneis.com/interactive-map/maps-and-documents.html and on the DOE National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) website at http://energy.gov/nepa/environmental-impact-statements-eis. DOE has not made a decision regarding the proposed Plains & Eastern Clean Line Transmission Project. DOE is the lead federal agency for the preparation of the Final EIS, which examines the potential environmental impacts from the Applicant Proposed Project and the range of reasonable alternatives. The Applicant is Clean Line Energy Partners LLC of Houston, Texas, the parent company of Plains and Eastern Clean Line LLC and Plains and Eastern Clean Line Oklahoma LLC (collectively referred to as Clean Line or the Applicant). The Final EIS considers comments submitted on the Draft EIS, including those submitted during the public comment period that began on December 19, 2014, and ended on April 20, 2015. Late comments have been considered to the extent practicable. During the comment period, DOE held 15 public hearings in Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, and Tennessee. Approximately 950 comment documents were received from individuals, interested groups, tribal governments, and federal, state, and local agencies. In addition to numerous comments that provided a statement of general opposition or support, the primary topics raised include, but are not limited to: concern about electric and magnetic fields from the transmission line; concern about reductions in property value; concern about impacts to agricultural resources such as crop production, irrigation, and aerial spraying; concern about the use of eminent domain; and concern about visual impacts from the transmission line. A Comment Response Document, included as Appendix Q of the Final EIS, contains the comments received on the Draft EIS and DOE’s responses to these comments. Parallel with the NEPA process, DOE is evaluating Clean Line’s application under Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This non-NEPA evaluation includes, but is not limited to, reviewing the application against statutory criteria and other factors listed in the 2010 request for proposals (75 Federal Register 32940). An outcome of this evaluation could be a Participation Agreement between Clean Line and DOE, which would define under what conditions DOE would participate with Clean Line and, if applicable, would include any stipulations or requirements that resulted from this environmental review under NEPA. The DOE Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability website (http://www.energy.gov/oe/services/electricity-policy-coordination-and-implementation/transmission-planning/section-1222-0) provides more information about the Section 1222 evaluation. If DOE decides to participate in the proposed Project, it will publish a Record of Decision no sooner than 30 days after publication of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. Copies of the Final EIS and supporting documents are available for inspection at public reading rooms. Have questions? Email us at info@PlainsandEasternEIS.com

Xcel’s cost of electricity is down.  Yet they want more money from us, 9.8% over the next 3 years, with the average residential customer’s 675 kW/hr bill to go up $11 a month.  WHAT?

Meanwhile, last year at the legislature, the biggest of the big customers got a special rate category and special lower rates.  WHAT?

The above graph is from Chuck Burdick’s testimony — after dealing with him in the Goodhue Wind case, I couldn’t resist checking out his testimony (Application, 2A2 – MYRP).

So if Xcel Energy was authorized a certain ROE, and only earned a much lesser ROE, does that mean we should make up the difference?  Also from Burdick’s testimony:

Were this “free market” the response would be that the company should contract, that there are too many cooks in that kitchen, that the capital expenses not for our use, such as this big transmission build-out, should not occur, and we should not have to pay for them.

Let’s take a look at the drivers, where they’re running short — do we want to pay for this?  From the Application 1:

The initial filing in this new rate case is there for the reading, dig in, I’m sure there’s something you’ll enjoy.

Just go HERE TO PUC’S SEARCH DOCKETS PAGE and search for PUC docket 15-826, opened today.

In the STrib today:

Xcel seeks 9.8 percent rate hike in Minnesota over three years

Hot off the press, just filed:

Menahga_Comment of Andersen_FINAL

Overland_Andersen_Comment_FINAL

Whew, now back on the road!

Others filed today:

Comments_GRE-MP_201511-115396-01

DOT Comments_201511-115379-01

DNR Comments_201511-115391-01