Legalectric

Above, from the property tax information — the back yard as it was before we bought it… and now:

Let’s hear it for LAND STEWARDSHIP PROJECT!  Last night they held a meeting in Rushford, packed, almost ran out of chairs, good to see so many who want to take action against the frac sand mining push to sell our part of the world to oil and gas companies.  People get that the biggest issue here is corporate control and greed.

This meeting was lead by LSP’s Johanna Rupprecht, Megan Buckingham, and Doug Nopar, with LSP member activists Vince Ready, Barb Nelson, and Marilyn Frauenkron Bayer, and overall, it was well worth the drive.  It’s that same warm fuzzy feeling as filling a Taconite, MN gym on a -20 degree day, only warmer!

There are at least 11 mines proposed by Minnesota Sands that are subject to an Environmental Impact Statement, 615.31 acres, phased and connected actions under the Minnesota Rules and subject to a Mandatory Environmental Impact Statement because it’s over the 160 acre threshold.  Minn. R. 4410.4400, Subp. 9(B).

The EQB determined that these mines would indeed require an EIS (the mining companies try to say it’s “voluntary,” how good of them, but it’s not voluntary, it’s MANDATORY) in March.

EQB Board Packet 3-20-13

There are a few things that I think need to be done, information that needed in the public domain:

• File a Data Practices Act Request with the EQB and do a quick file review to find out what’s been going on with these projects thus far.  The public is left out of the “pre-application” discussions.

• Make sure the EIS scope is broad, and that the EQB doesn’t release a one-sided scope proposal that would take an act of Congress to alter… or a lawsuit!

• Details of ownership, who owns these projects, who is behind these projects, and how do these projects own!!!  Who in the community and which of “the deciders” are being paid by the mining companies.  Remember Dennis Egan, former Mayor of Red Wing?  Who else is in their employ, direct or indirect?  We need to know about these connections and obligations:

April Fool on April Fools Day!

Rochester Chamber: Egan, Broberg & others on frac sand

Mayor Egan Resigns

Where’s the Mayor’s resignation letter?

7p TONIGHT – Red Wing City Council Meeting

Mayor Egan to resign? Sand mining bill introduced!

Last Mayor Egan post before Council meeting

KARE 11 turns up the heat on RW Mayor Egan

Red Wing Mayor Egan exposed

Mayor Egan – the voice of frac sand mining!

 

Updates on rulemaking ongoing at the PUC (not that they put anything in the PUC docket, but don’t worry, I’ll post there too):

June 26 Meting Synopsis

July 8 Draft

Is this too wonkish, or does anyone else see the irony in having to struggle so to get opportunity for public input in these Certificate of Need rules?

If you have comments on the draft rules, and BE SPECIFIC, label with rule citation (i.e., Minn. R. 7849.0100, and show how you’d change the rule, with the narrative explanation and the exact words you suggest, and send to kate.kahlert@state.mn.us and post to docket 12-1246 at the PUC site if you can, (www.puc.state.mn.us and click on “eFiling” and sign up to post if you’re not already registered).

History and background, with links to the comments thus far:

Last week was the second meeting of the “Advisory Committee” for the Minnesota Rules Chapter 7849 (Certificate of Need) pre-rulemaking drafting.  Here’s the most recent draft — and the Ch. 7850 draft is ??? overdue… will post it as soon as it’s in.

7849 June 5 DRAFT New

It’s frustrating, because the informal “pre-rulemaking” drafting is the only real opportunity to offer any changes, once it’s into formal rulemaking, it won’t change in any substantive way.  Meanwhile, it’s ongoing and the public isn’t well represented, well, they ARE represented, but only in nominal numbers, i.e. ONE regular person, and three attorneys who represent citizens, advocacy, landowners, environmental groups.  SOOOOO, I’m doing what I can to let people know what’s going on.  They’re not even making the drafts public so … here it is AGAIN!  And I posted it on the PUC’s 7849 rulemaking site, go HERE and search for docket 12-1246!

If you have comments, write them up, very specifically explaining your comment and linking it to the specific rule or part of the rule the comment relates to, and post on the PUC’s eDockets or send to kate.kahlert@state.mn.us (she’s the PUC staff person in charge of this rulemaking).

A previous post with the details:

Transmission — it’s all connected.  In looking at the Minnesota rulemaking, and the existing and proposed rules that utilize the word “regional,” I’m thinking about big picture stuff, the big proposals in the wings, and that Joint Coordinated System Plan (JCSP) map sure presents a big picture. For some reason, I’ve not been able to find the full JCSP report until recently:

JCSP_Report_Volume_1

JCSP_Report_Volume_2

Who cares about JCSP?  Well, WE’D better care, because look who’s paying for the transmission build-out (p. 68 of Vol. 1):

Look at the numbers for Midwest ISO, a $-10,293, or for MAPP, a $12,292, that’s a COST, not a savings.  MISO and MAPP get nominal production cost savings and massive load COSTS.  This is not news, but is worth repeating as we discuss “regional.”  And another take with the same take-away of big costs for MISO and MAPP customers, used by our good friends at  AWEA to promote this transmission buildout in their flyer called “Green Power Transmission and Consumer Savings” (flyer below):

Read the whole thing:

AWEA_Transmission_and_Consumer_Savings

What a deal, eh?

Look what AWEA has been advocating to make this happen:

AWEA – Green Power Superhighways