Legalectric

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

From a U.S. Forest Service tour, happening right now, here in our “office” for the morning:

Mather Lodge at Petit Jean State Park was redone in 2010 to bring it back to its 1930s splendor.

Finished in 1935, idea was to build a park lodge in National Park Service style of rustic architecture.  In 1906, there was a lot of timber cutting, there was a mill called the Fowler Mill, owned by Ft. Smith lumber company, doing very well at the turn of the century.  The lumber hired a Dr. Hardiston, who grew to love the area, and pushed the company to donate the area, and that idea simmered for a while.

By 1916, the army was released from their caretaking of National Parks.  National Park Service formed in 1916, and were looking for a special person, and that was “Mather,” Steven Mather, owned the “Twenty Mule Team Borax” company.  Dr. Hardiston went to see Steven Mather to get this area as a National Park, Hardiston and board did a “feasibility study” riding their horses around, got 1,100 acres, and so when he met with Mather, they joined forces to create the park.  What Mather proposed, due to low numbers of acres, was to put together a National Conference of State Parks, where National service would come in with design help.  Hardiston went to the state legislator in 1923, first proposal for a state park in Arkansas, and Petit Jean became a state park in March 1923.  At this time, there was nothing here but woods and gravel roads and a few paths.

After the crash, Roosevelt created the Civilian Conservation Corps, and they created camps who went around and built infrastructure.  Dr. Hardiston petitioned for a camp for Petit Jean, and got it, a veteran camp of WWI vets.  National Park Service joined with CCC and drew up plans for the park, even though it’s a state park.  There’s an old chimney and a statute, and that is where the camp was.   It was named for Mather because of his contributions to make this park happen — no other park has a Mather lodge.

It was one of the projects designed by the National Park Service, all the details including walls, trails, and all the buildings.  An engineer, Samuel Davies, came up, and brought his son too, and he became Superintendent. 

There was some community division as this got going, but they started holding community dances, and they got community support.

They built the lodge with the resources on site, the logs and stone, if they weren’t stone masons to start, they became stone masons.

There were 8 cottages originally, and more later.  The original lodge rooms were small, and standards have changed, then there was just a small room, with a bathroom down the hall.  There’s a swimming pool now, the first one built in the 60s, and the one today built a few years ago.

And off the go to tour another area of the lodge!  And so off we go to check out another part of Arkansas!