Legalectric

Ya know, the weather couldn’t be any better.  Cool, sunny, but rainy enough, birds chirping, and the baby robins are growing:

But this morning, it was a chorus of jangly rebar and jackhammers into the stone.  They’re working on the retaining wall now.  Piles of rebar line the first 30+ feet of Sturdevant, and a new addition that will probably increase our market value and assessment:

It’s a bit scary how close they’ve dug in to the houses up on top of the hill, and now getting in there with jackhammers, oh my.  I would NOT want to live in one of those houses up on top.

And down West, they’re experiencing the joy of sewer and water replacement that we went through for the past month now:

Trying to figure out what kind of duck this quacks like!

In STrib: Suburbs skeptical of speedy Zip Rail

I get nervous where there’s something big proposed, but not much in the way of info.  I do care who owns and will own the project, where the money’s coming from (more massive subsidies of Rochester/Mayo?), potential isolation of people suddenly blocked off from their access roads, and no stops along the way so affected communities receive no benefit.  I think I’d prefer light rail, but ???  Need to know more.

The format of these meetings prevents you from asking important questions, speaking your mind, and making comments publicly so that we can share information and questions.  Public opinion is silenced. This is a NEPA process, MN EQB noticed, and should have a formal public hearing.

Comments due by August  6, 2014.  Send comments to:

          info@goziprail.org         or

MN DOT Passenger Rail Office ATTN: Zip Rail

395 John Ireland Boulevard, MS 470

St. Paul, MN 55155

Note there is an EXISTING COMMUTER BUS SYSTEM, serving many locations, which a “Zip Rail” would not.  Zip Rail would only serve 2-3 locations in the Metro.

What I do see is they’re trying hard to line everything up, here’s from a meeting with Secretary Ray La Hood (just to L of flag):

Now to start, full disclosure, I don’t really have a dog in this fight, and don’t know much about it, so I’ve started looking because this week are the scoping meetings on “Round 1” of the environmental review.  Tonight was Rochester:

Rochester
Tuesday, July 29, 2014
Rochester Community and Technical College

Inver Grove Heights
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Inver Grove Community Center

Kenyon
Thursday, July 31, 2014
Kenyon-Wanamingo High School

All meetings 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm

Hey, Chuck Michael, long time since the Mesaba Project!!!

I’ve been hearing a lot about the “Zip Rail” through southern Minnesota, between the Metro and Rochester.  But when I look, I don’t see much.  This was selected as part of a “Midwest Corridor linking Chicago, IL with Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN, Detroit, MI, St. Louis, MO, Indianapolis, IN, and the Quad Cities, IL/IA.”  We know our friend Scott Walker tanked it in Wisconsin, but Walker is not a permanent fixture so that could change.

My gut says that it’d be a lot easier to justify a Metro – Chicago train than Metro – Rochester.  Maybe it’s a step, but ???  As a stand-alone, it’s hard to get worked up about, considering what I imagine the impacts would be.

The most detailed report I’ve found so far is:

Economic Impacts of High Speed Rail (2011)

This is from Midwest High Speed Rail Assn.  There’s a lot on this site, like a Minnesota projects page.  One I didn’t know about, the Red Rock Corridor, from Hastings to St. Paul (which may have switched to a pus project).

Here’s the official Minnesota Zip Rail site, and there’s not as much:   www.goziprail.org

Here’s their “documents” page thus far for the Zip Line:

Title	Document Type	Date	Format	File Size
Zip Rail Open House Flyer	Public Meeting Materials	Jul 16, 2014		132 KB
Newsletter – July 2014	Newsletters	Jul 07, 2014		885 KB
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting No. 4	Other	Jul 07, 2014		5 MB
Zip Rail Scoping Package	Reports	Jul 07, 2014		7 MB
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting No.3	Reports	Oct 17, 2013		3 MB
Draft Purpose and Need Statement	Reports	Oct 07, 2013		634 KB
Public Involvement Plan	Reports	Jun 01, 2013		4 MB
Notice of Intent	Reports	May 13, 2013		28 KB
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting No.2	Reports	Apr 04, 2013		1 MB
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting No.1	Reports	Feb 28, 2013		1 MB

There’s some reading to do.  But there are a few questions that are jumping out at me:

• Ridership numbers – was the modeling done pre-economic crash?
• What’s the ridership demographics?
• What’s the cost – Alan said to figure $100 million/mile — is that accurate?
• Who benefits from this, geographically, and specifically (is this for Mayo?  I have a hard time imagining sick people on the train.  I’d guess they’d fly in or take a limo.)
• It’s supposed to be electric — above train or part of the track below (meaning lower profile?)
• How will it sit on the land — in trench, or above ground, and how will it be fenced in/walled off?
• What are predicted operating expenses?
• Ownership is “flexible.”  The DOT now owns it but that could change, it could be federal, state, private, and/or a combo, and if so, what is impact on land acquisition if a private project?

So there’s a little to think about before the meetings tomorrow and Thursday evening!  Be there or be square!

Found in Finance & Commerce:

I love it when this happens — when the truth is so obvious that they can no longer deny it:

This decreased demand is the reason they want us to pay for transmission lines across the U.S. so they can market all this surplus power in locations where prices are higher.  DOH!

Electricity Sales Anemic for Seventh Year in a Row – WSJ July 28 2014

Credit where credit is due!  MPCA, keep at it!  You all know I love to slap up the MPCA, well, any agency, when they’re missing the boat.  Well, I also am a big believer in letting them know when they’re doing something right, and I’m cautiously optimistic that we’re seeing the beginning of something important!

For most of this year, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has been holding meetings about Environmental Justice, and it looks to me like the MPCA is working to shift active identification and recognition of environmental justice issues and impacted parties/resources to the agency.  Agency initiative.   Can this be?

Yesterday’s agenda (and GREAT food!):

28 July Agenda Final_MPCA

Check out the MPCA Environmental Justice Page!

I’m a grizzled old fart, and have been around agencies for entirely too long, but what is apparent is that this agency is taking the initiative to address environmental justice issues, and to be proactive, not just reactive.  And it’s not just me, there are a few other grizzled old farts who are encouraged, excited, and looking forward to progress.  It feels like something may be happening.

What I’ve also noticed is that the “usual suspect” organizations are absent.  There’s a big long list on the MPCA Environmental Justice Page and with one exception, they’re no shows.  Karen Monahan, Sierra Club, has done a lot to get this moving.  Is it that these other groups don’t care?  Is it a coincidence that things are happening in their absence?

The “Framework Elements” are:

• Core Regulatory Services (Permitting, Compliance and Enforcement, etc.)
• EJ Area Analysis
• Enhanced Ouutreach
• Consideration of Cumulative Impacts
• Stakeholder Engagement

Hey, MPCA — can you post the handouts from yesterday and contact info and meeting notices?

If you are interested in what they’re doing, contact Ned Brooks, the MPCA’s Environmental Justice Coordinator: Ned.Brooks@state.mn.us

It’s that time again — Thursday, July 24, is the next meeting of the Silica Sand Rulemaking Advisory Committee.  It will be held at the People’s Energy Cooperative, in Oronoco, and run from 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.

Will there be draft rules trotted out for review on Thursday?  $50 says they won’t have draft rules for review this time either… and folks, I do NOT want to win that bet.  But this is a repeated problem. What I’m seeing is that if they are going to put the draft rules before the EQB in September, this is the last chance to receive a draft, take it to constituents, and bring back comments and concerns to the Committee in August!  Now … the last chance…

Those who are “representing” us:

How about standing up and demanding full process and disclosure of draft rules?  And how about reporting back on what’s going on, and more importantly, what’s NOT going on?   You also need to forward the draft rules and other information to all of your “constituents” who you’re representing and solicit for comments to take back to the Rulemaking group.  The communities at stake here should be aware of the utter lack of progress and lack of draft rule disclosure and should be storming the agencies and Governor’s office!  Informing us is a big part of the job of being a “representative” on this committee.  (Listening to the June meeting, Charlie is delivering a message about the importance of keeping alternates informed and of alternates to keep themselves up to speed… that goes for letting the rest of us know what’s happening too!)

I’m also curious about Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy’s role, and why MCEA is the only NGO represented — what’s up with that?

In the recorded WebEx for June 24 there are some great comments from members on cumulative impacts and density of projects, threshold of acres of farmland lost.  Also consideration of the AUAR process applicable to silica sand mining permits, and baseline info about silica sand mining footprint.  And DOH, the need for the SONAR to be able to address rules, and a need for holistic review and a mine inventory.  Check it out.

Here’s the July 24 agenda — do you see any mention here of the September plan to present rules to EQB?

AGENDA

• 10:00 a.m. – Facilitator: welcome, introductions and agenda

• 10:15 – Theresa Haugen: Water Permitting 101 Overview of NPDES permitting, including difference between general and individual permits Specifics on permitting of silica sand facilities

• 11:10 – Break

• 11:15 – Erik Dahl: Environmental Review Rules EQB timelines, next steps, process Legislative directive: rulemaking Historical and current context: rules

• 12:15 – Lunch

• 12:45 – Erik Dahl (continued discussion) Discuss survey results Discuss rulemaking buckets and scope Threshold topics.

• 3:00 – Facilitator: Check-In and Wrap Up How would you rate your participation today? (Scale of 1 to 5; 5 being the highest) What do you need to be more effective? Examples: Group process suggestions, additional information, etc.

The statutory purpose of a Rulemaking Advisory Committee is to comment on DRAFT rules PRIOR to release by the agency for comment.  This is where input is most important, because once the draft rules are released for comment, the agency may not approve rules that are substantially different!  Comments after release won’t have a heck of a lot of influence, that’s how the rulemaking process works (or doesn’t work).  So meanwhile, what’s happening here is that not enough is happening, that the agencies here are sandbagging the rulemaking process.  Listen to the WebEx recordings, it’s worthwhile to get the flavor of these meetings.

Yes, it’s true, I’ve not gone to these meetings.  Why?  Because odds are it would be like the last time I went to a meeting where Charlie Peterson was “facilitating” and lots of questions were dodged, answers were not provided and those that were only covered 1/2 the issue, narrowing the discussion rather than broadening it as should be done for scoping, and crucial information was being withheld in a transmission scoping Advisory Task Force group.  The historical scoop:  I’m asking you to leave…

Here’s what the Rulemaking Advisory Committee has done thus far, from the Silica Sand page:

Past meetings

June 2014

• See the recorded WebEx
• Presentation: AQ rule concepts: Walkthrough and dashboard
• Handout: [DRAFT] Shared agency definitions for rulemaking

May 2014

• Meeting notes (May 2014)
• See the recorded WebEx
• Presentation: Silica sand rulemaking – Reclamation (Part 1)
• Presentation: Silica sand rulemaking – Reclamation (Part 2)
• Handout: Overview of DNR rulemaking

April 2014

• Meeting notes (April 2014)
• See the recorded WebEx (part 1)
• See the recorded WebEx (part 2)

March 2014

• Meeting notes (March 2014)
• See the recorded WebEx
• Presentation: Air permitting 101 – Air regulations and permits

January 2014

The panel first met on January 29.

• Meeting notes (January 2014)

• Presentation: Rulemaking 101

Again, here is the statute:

Once more with feeling:

To the rulemaking staff at MPCA, EQB and DNR:  YOU’RE AVOIDING PUBLIC INPUT ON DRAFT RULES PRIOR TO BRINGING TO PROPOSAL TO THE BOARD.  STOP SANDBAGGING THE PROCESS AND PRODUCE THE DRAFT RULES FOR REVIEW.

DISCLOSE DRAFT RULES FOR REVIEW BY ADVISORY COMMITTEE PRIOR TO TAKING THEM TO EQB BOARD & AGENCIES!

To the representatives on the Rulemaking Advisory Panel, please represent your constituents and let us all know what’s going on, get the draft Rules, and get them to your constituents — US — for review and comment!