From New Era’s office, above, comes this letter, withdrawing its request for review of its Avian and Bat Protection Plan and requesting the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission “terminate” the siting permit.

‘Bout time…

20139-91364-01 NEW ERA TERMINATION LETTER

This has been a LONG time in the making, it should have been shut down years ago.  What’s particularly disturbing, is that two areas are at issue, the C-BED qualification, because it is NOT a C-BED project under the Minn. Stat. 216B.1612, and environmental review, which is not required under Minnesota wind siting statutes and wind siting rules.

In the Rochester Post Bulletin:

POST BULLETIN New Era CEO pulls plug on Goodhue wind project 09 17 13

In the Beagle:

It’s a new era… and no, I don’t mean Peter Mastic’s New Era Wind Project.  It’s a new era for transmission.  They’re building CapX 2020, what a disheartening vision across Minnesota.

And now Minnesota Power wants to build its Great Northern Transmission Line, hence… drumroll please…

THE NOT-SO-GREAT NORTHERN TRANSMISSION LINE

Just got it up and running earlier this week, and I’ve been having access problems up here by the border, but in time…

Can someone explain what this meme means???  It’s popping up lately, and when I ask what it means… oh my, that seems to be a bit problematic.

There are some facts floating around that, when combined with this, leave me scratching my head…

1) Bush lied to start a war.

2) Obama had Osama bin Laden killed.

3) Syria’s Assad is gassing his people.

So … anyone care to explain?

Back to Public Utilities Commission rulemaking, this time Chapter 7829.

A while back, I’d filed a Petition for Rulemaking:

Overland Petition for Rulemaking Ch 7829 March 24 2011

Then about two years later, the PUC published proposed rules:

Initial Proposed Rules_20132-83863-01-4

Then there was a Comment Period, but hey, I knew nothing, as I was NOT notified, and didn’t find out until I discovered it, utterly accidentally, on the PUC site, color me more than a little bit peeved:

Overland 7829 Comments June 2013-Corrected

So there’s a Commission meeting, and they issue the draft with a request for comments on specific issues:

Notice & Request for Comments 20138-89998-01

Proposed Rules 20137-89560-02

And I’m  comparing their initial proposal with what’s been released, major changes, and they’re not explained, and on behalf of NoCapX 2020 and U-CAN, I have this to say:

NoCapX and U-CAN Comments Sept 6, 2013

It never ends… and really, folks, we do need the PUC to have a rule about statements made to the Commission, clearly stating that statements and representations are expected to be true, and if not, well, then you deserve what happens!!!

.

Those folks have been working overtime…

EQB Meeting

 

September 19, 2013

1:00 p.m.

 

MPCA Building, Basement

Lafayette & University

St. Paul, MN

Below is the EQB packet for the September 18, 2013 meeting.  There’s a Silica Sand Update, and their view of “Standards and Criteria” begins on p. 13, there are 19 pages.

The good news is there’s some good stuff there.  Of course I like that they’re using my format.  It not all bad, for instance, that they’re clear that the standards and criteria apply statewide, because, DOH!  It’s criteria based, and the applications, and the issues they’re regulating, occur in only specific places.  SE Minnesota isn’t special, it’s just a place where protections of our natural resources are needed, and of course, natural resources including ones of the homo sapien variety!

Here is the EQB packet for the September 18, 2013 meeting — it starts at 1 p.m., down in the basement of the MPCA building:

EQB Board Packet 9-18-13.

So the first thing anyone with any interest in this should do is to QUICK fire off a missive requesting a Rulemaking (DNR, MPCA, EQB) Advisory Committee, indicating whether or not they’d like to serve on it.

Here’s what I send them:

Overland_Comments_Sept 8

How can you weigh in?  Just send a simple email to:  jeff.smyser@state.mn.us, bob.patton@state.mn.us, kate.frantz@state.mn.us

Subject: Silica Sand Rulemaking – EQB, MPCA and DNR

Please establish an Advisory Committee for the EQB, MPCA and DNR Rulemakings. 
I am willing to serve on the Advisory and would like to be considered as a member (if you would like to go to meetings and work on this).

Thanks,

Your name here
Your address, phone and email here

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here’s what EQB staff put in its packet to the Board — WOW.   I hope they know more about rulemaking process than they’re letting on here!

Also note they claim they only received 23 comments in response to their Request for Rulemaking.  That’s a pathetic response!  I’ll fire off a FOIA request to get the Comments.