Oh, Baltimore…
April 28th, 2015
I really don’t know how to deal with our inability, our refusal, to deal with the systemic problems in this country. In the 50 years that I’ve been aware that there’s no “liberty and justice for all,” not much has changed…
Plains & Eastern UnClean Line non-NEPA process begins!
April 27th, 2015
The long awaited moment has arrived — the substantive review by DOE of the Plains & Eastern UnClean Line is now public. Remember, there are NO RULES, this is uncharted territory, they’ve not done anything like this before!
There’s a lot of stuff here — this is cut and pasted from the DOE SITE, and downloading will take a while:
Plains & Eastern Clean Line Transmission Line – Part 2 Application
Non-NEPA Review (1222 Review): In addition to conducting a NEPA review of the proposed Plains & Eastern Clean Line Transmission Line project, DOE will also conduct due diligence on non-NEPA factors such as the project’s technical and financial feasibility and whether the project is in the public interest. DOE will conduct a thorough review that includes making all required statutory findings and will consider all criteria listed in Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, as well as all factors included in DOE’s 2010 Request for Proposals.
In December 2014, DOE requested additional information from the applicant to supplement and update its original application. The updated Part 2 application and other documentation are now available below for a 45-day public comment period. The public comment period begins on April 28, 2015, the date the Notice of Availability is published in the Federal Register, and will close on June 12, 2015. DOE is accepting comments on whether the proposed project meets the statutory criteria listed in Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, as well as all factors included in DOE’s 2010 Request for Proposals. All comments submitted during either comment period will be considered in the DOE’s ultimate decision as to whether to participate in the proposed project under the Section 1222 Program. Therefore, comments submitted during the NEPA public comment period do not need to be re-submitted during the 1222 public comment period, regardless of the subject discussed in the comments.
Some appendices have been redacted to protect privileged or confidential business information.
Bill Howley, “The Power Line” blogger, has died
April 26th, 2015
Bill Howley died yesterday.
Bill Howley is known by anyone working in opposition to transmission projects. Due to a transmission line proposed in his community, he learned pretty much everything there is to know about transmission, wrote about it faithfully and fearlessly for years, and became an expert on advocacy, economics and technology of all things electrical. He’s one of the first resources people would turn to when they first learned of transmission projects. Recently, he’d taken the position of Program Director for WV SUN.
Bill Howley’s blog, since 2008 — take a few minutes to get an idea of the depth of his work. Here’s hoping that his family will keep this blog going in perpetuity, a memorial to his work and as a guiding light for all those who are dealing with transmission projects:
The Power Line
The View from Calhoun County
From the Hur Herald from Sunny Cal:
People’s Advocate Bill Howley of Calhoun County has died.
He was a well-known researcher, consultant, consumer advocate, activist, writer, and paralegal.
Rep. Garofalo — working against landowner interests
April 23rd, 2015
The price of Garofalo is too cheap — toadying to the corporate masters.
Rep. Garofalo claimed it is not the legislature’s role to interfere in private contracts. But in taking out the language specific to Black Oak/Getty wind, he adds this tidbit, it supposedly was added in committee “during markup” — did anyone on the committee understand? Did anyone look at this footnote to Minn. Stat. 500.30? It’s in the 2nd Engrossment, then 3rd, and 4th which was passed yesterday with some amendments:
This is language that modifies a footnote to Minn. Stat. 500.30. It pushes up the sunset of the 7 year limit for wind easement contracts. And there’s nothing in here that says that it does not apply to current contracts. Geronimo wants it because it WOULD apply, at least they’d try to make that happen!
Nope, this is not OK at all. That’s just doing the corporation’s bidding in another way. Thanks, thanks a lot. If you want to keep this language in, it needs to expressly state that it has no application to existing contracts.
I wonder — did Sempra know they were jumping into this morass when they bought the project?
Now it’s time to keep on Senate to remove it, and be alert for the Conference Committee.
Here’s the contact info for all Senators, it will hit the floor sometime, either in SF 1431 or maybe even SF 2101:
Why?
1) We need to make sure that the Senate, THE WHOLE SENATE, knows that the special legislation for Geronimo in S.F. 1431, p. 34, lines 8-16, must be deleted when this comes to the floor in the Senate, if not before. Check that bill carefully.
2) Also don’t try to sneak it in like they did in the House:
3) They also need to know that this special legislation for Geronimo must not appear in any other bill — don’t try to sneak it in somewhere else, and don’t forget to take it out, don’t try to drop it in during Conference Committee! NO! NO! NO!
Contact each and every Senator and let them know “No special legislation for Geronimo” and that under Minn. Stat. 500.30, wind easement contracts now terminate after 7 years — do not attempt to change this 7 year limit for existing contracts between landowners and the wind developer/owner. This change would be for the benefit of the Black Oak/Getty wind project(s) and to the detriment of the landowners.
Energy Omnibus Bills this session?
April 22nd, 2015
What’s going on with these Energy Omnibus Bills? It’s bad enough that they do it in this “Omnibus” form, instead it’s OMINOUS, because they toss such a mash of incongruous things together, a little for everyone so they have a “deal, a package deal, and it’s a good deal” when it’s really just a mess that adds up to bad policy.
Senate Energy Omnibus bill is SF 1431:
The Companion HF 1678 Textisn’t going anywhere…
House Employment and Economic Development Bill is filled with energy related backpedaling and is even more OMINOUS:
The “Senate Companion” to HF 843 does not really exist, but the stated companion, SF 804 was added to S.F. 2101, the Omnibus agriculture, environment, natural resources, jobs, and economic development appropriations:
With the different bills, it gets difficult when considering the special legislation for Black Oak/Getty that Geronimo added to the Senate bill (SF 1431). That language remains in SF 1431. Now it’s BACK in HF 843 — as of tonight.
Initially, it was added to the House bill (HF843) without any committee discussion, but was then removed (YES!) after loud objections.
Better yet, the new owner of the project, Sempra U.S. Gas & Power, wants nothing to do with Geronimo’s legislative “fix.” From “Signed, sealed and sold: Controversial legislative fix gone with the wind” Watchdog.org Minnesota Bureau, by Tom Steward, Sempra confirms that important distinction between itself and the former owner, Geronimo (also linked below):
Good! Sempra, thank you for taking a step back! That they’re distancing from legislative action on private contracts is a sign that they have a sense of ethics and won’t try to steamroll this project through. They deserve a hearty “Here! Here!” Will Sempra give a listen to landowners? We shall see!
But then tonight, I heard that Rep. Garofalo put it back in. Specific wording remains to be seen, let’s have a look at the 4th Engrossment, which should be out soon. But noooo, this sly change was added a while ago:
Rep. Garofalo, you’d said on the record that it wasn’t the legislature’s business to interfere in private contracts. Now it’s suddenly OK. So which is it? Now you think it’s OK to jump to your corporate masters and put that language in, to the detriment of the residents of Raymond and Getty Township who have contracts, contracts with specific stated termination dates? Shame… what changed?
And Sempra supposedly isn’t the only one to publicly back off — two sources in the Senate have said, IN WRITING, that Geronimo has said it wants that language deleted from the Senate version. SO LET’S DO IT!
In the meantime, though, despite those assurances, we need to keep at it. We need to continue to let the Senate know to remove Section 40 of S.F. 1431, which is lines 34.8 – 34.16 on p. 3,4 to eliminate that special legislation for Geronimo:
It’s supposed to happen when it hits the floor for a vote, and right now, “negotiations” seem to be stalled out, everything is behind closed door, and we have no way of knowing what’s really going on.
So what to do?
1) We need to thank everyone for removing the offensive special legislation from HF 843. We need to make sure they know that the special legislation language must not appear in any House version. And don’t even think of putting this special legislation interfering with private contracts into any bill in Conference Committee.
Contact each and every House member and let them know “No special legislation for Geronimo” and that under Minn. Stat. 500.30, wind easement contracts now terminate after 7 years — do not attempt to change this for existing contracts between landowners and the wind developer/owner of the Black Oak/Getty wind project(s). Stand up for the people of Raymond and Getty Townships and remove this language. Say NO to your corporate masters!
2) We need to make sure that the Senate, THE WHOLE SENATE, knows that the special legislation for Geronimo in S.F. 1431, p. 34, lines 8-16, must be deleted when this comes to the floor in the Senate. They also need to know that this special legislation for Geronimo must not appear in any other bill — don’t try to sneak it in somewhere else, and don’t forget to take it out, don’t try to drop it in during Conference Committee! NO! NO! NO!
Contact each and every Senator and let them know “No special legislation for Geronimo” and that under Minn. Stat. 500.30, wind easement contracts now terminate after 7 years — do not attempt to change this for existing contracts between landowners and the wind developer/owner of the Black Oak/Getty wind project(s).