Legalectric

Comments due TOMORROW!!!  If you want to be a part of the Rulemaking Advisory Committee, this is the time to let them know that you want to be included.  After you’ve written your comments, file in PUC Docket 12-1246 or email to: kate.kahlert@state.mn.us

The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission has opened a docket for… get this:

Possible Amendments to Rules Governing Certificates of Need and Site and Route Permits for Large Electric Power Plants and High-Voltage Transmission Lines, Minnesota Rules, Chapters 7849 and 7850; and to Rules Governing Notice Plan Requirements for High-Voltage Transmission Lines, Minnesota Rules, part 7829.2550; Revisor’s ID Number R-04151; PUC Docket No. E,ET,IP-999/R-12-1246.

This is similar to the OAH “Possible” rulemaking, where they’re on a fishing expedition, for what I have not a clue, whether it’s to get ideas, or find out what not to include or identify the usual suspects, very hard to tell, and I couldn’t get any information out of Bret Eknes at the PPSA Annual Hearing.  The notice states “The Commission has not yet drafted the possible rule amendments.”

Here’s the notice — note they do say that part of this is to “maximize citizen participation” so let’s hold them to it:

Request for Comments – “Possible” Amendments to Rules PUC Docket 12-1246

Possible?  Ummmmm, right… well, it’s about time. Here’s the PUC’s Rulemaking site (you can also go to eDockets, search for 12-1246):

I’d put in a rulemaking Petition two years ago tomorrow…

Overland Petition 2010 PPSA Annual Hearing, filed January 2011

…and they said they wanted it broken down.  OK, sure, whatever, so I did.  Thus far I’ve filed the OAH ones, and haven’t gotten around to doing that yet.  SO, got to work today and ground out these comments based on the previously filed ones, you can use these for ideas, steal away!

NoCapX & U-CAN Comments – Jan 23, 2013

Once more with feeling, they’re due tomorrow.

Gov. Mark Dayton is a Shep nut… like some people I know… and I expect those shep sensibilities to extend to sensible policy proposals.  But part of his budget proposal is to CUT corporate taxes!  Yes, CUT corporate taxes.

Silly me…

Here’re his budget ideas, taken from the Minnesota Management & Budget Page:

FY 2014-15 Governor’s Budget Recommendation

Governor’s Presentation

MMB Presentation

Agency Level Narratives Including Governor’s Recommendations -January 22, 2013

Governor’s Budget Supporting Documents

Additional information on the components of the Governor’s FY 2014-15 budget can be found at www.mn.gov/governor/budget.

I have mixed feelings about sales tax on clothes, as they’re regressive, even if starting at $100.  In December, I bought Alan a pair of Red Wing shoes from the sale bin, and they were over $100.  And then there the tax on services… MPR called it a “business to business” sales tax, but I need to find the details on what’s proposed.

MSBA says there would be these increases in the budget for the justice system, and looking at it, I can see “jobs jobs jobs” and some much needed funding in each area:

· Civil Legal Services: +4.5%

· Board of Public Defense: +6.5%

· Supreme Court: +4.3%

· Court of Appeals: +5.9%

· Trial Courts: +6.2%

· Tax Court: +19.5%

· Guardian Ad Litem Board: +4.3%

· Judicial Standards Board: +33%

· Human Rights Department: +4.1%

One very good addition is a 22% increase in the MPCA budget! Good!  This is the only agency I’ve seen argue in a rulemaking that a high threshold for enforcement should be adopted because they don’t have funds to regulate.  Give me a break!

There’s NO ENTRY WHATSOEVER for Environmental Quality Board.

Tell the Governor what you think – CLICK HERE FOR CONTACT FORM

Better arrange for our grrrrrrrrrls to have a chat with him!

Cut corporate taxes?  The idea is a turkey.

There was a Comment period on New Era Wind Project f/k/a AWA Goodhue Wind Project f/k/a Goodhue Wind Project’s second Avian and Bat Protection Plan.  The Comment Period was to end the 15th, two days ago.  Then Commerce asked for an Extension to comment on the USFWS review of the monitoring and that review wasn’t coming in until January 15th.  Great… no time to review.  So yes, extend, that makes sense.  Well, the extension they asked for was just until today, January 17th, and that’s what was granted.  But the USFWS review wasn’t eFiled until yesterday.  So we get one day.  And now here it is after 2:00 p.m.  Too much going on…

Here’s the report:

US Fish and Wildlife Service – ABPP and monitoring comments

If you have comments on these, send to… oh great, here what they say:

Filing Requirements: Utilities, telecommunications carriers, official parties, and state agencies are required to file documents using the Commission’s electronic filing system (eFiling). All parties, participants and interested persons are encouraged to use eFiling.

So, to sign up for eFiling, go here and submit your comments:

eFiling Registration – it’s QUICK and it’s EASY!

Comments were due today on Minnesota Power’s request for Exemptions from the rules governing content of Applications for a Certificate of Need for a transmission line.

Look at the red on that map — potentially affected areas where MP is looking to put a transmission line.  WOOOOO-EEEE, that’s a lot of land!

Minnesota Power’s proposed Great Northern Transmission Line is inching along in the Certificate of Need process.  Here’s Minnesota Power’s site:

Great Northern Transmission Line page

And to look at the full docket, go to www.puc.state.mn.us, click on “Search eDockets” and search for 12-1163.  The application is expected sometime in March or so, but I’d guess it will be later.

Here’s how they plan to let people know about the project — it was filed a while ago, Comments were due, and I tried and tried to get people to comment, oh well, here’s what was filed about the Notice Plan filed in October and the Comments filed in November:

MP Great Northern Transmission Line Notice Plan

Commerce Comments on MP’s GNTL Notice Plan

Overland Notice Plan Comments

That’s sitting at the PUC now.  So where are we?  Just starting out…  Here’s a diagram of the hoops for the PUC process, edited a bit by yours truly for handouts at the meetings a couple months ago, we’re at the very first box in the chart:

Today, comments were due on the Minnesota Power request for Exemptions from some specific rules, Reply Comments, that is.  Here’s what’s been filed:

Minnesota Power Exemption Request

Commerce Comments – Exemptions Request

MP Exemptions Reply Comments

Overland-Legalectric Reply Comments

This “streamlining” of environmental review marches onward.

COMMENTS ARE DUE TOMORROW!

ONLINE COMMENT FORM HERE

I’d guess that the Gov. got an earful of what the people thought of his idea to … well… to… see E.O. 11-32, with an apparent intent to gut, slice and dice – the people don’t like it one bit:

Executive Order 11-32

Meetings were held, comments were given, but the only thing presented to comment on, and about which comments were directed, was the “Environmental Report Card.”  But there also was a report about “Improving Environmental Review” and “Environmental Coordination and Governance.”  Not one word was said by the meeting facilitators about these two reports, reports that were “approved” by the EQB before these meetings were even held!  Great, just great.

Here were a few of my comments at the time, which I’ll be sending in, in technicolor:

Links to the EQB Environmental Review documents:

• Evaluation and Recommendations for Improving Environmental Review
• Recommendations for Environmental Governance and Coordination
• Minnesota Environment and Energy Report Card

At the meeting, I’d asked when comments were due, and the response, after they all looked at each other, was “anytime before the Environmental Congress (sometime in March, still no date disclosed).

Now, I hear there’s a deadline of January 15.  It’s not on the EQB calendar, and it’s buried on the “Environmental Congress” page.  Here is that deadline and also a form to make online comments:

ONLINE COMMENT FORM HERE

Click HERE for the EQB’s “Resource” page.

Note there’s a “Calendar” on the Resource Page, above  Click on that CALENDAR and note that there is no mention of any deadline for comments.

Please read the two reports with something of substance (the report card is “fluff” at best):

• Evaluation and Recommendations for Improving Environmental Review
• Recommendations for Environmental Governance and Coordination

What’s most important about these is that they’ve backed off from some of the language of the draft reports, the “eliminate regulation” mantra is not so frenetic.  The charge for these reports was:

1. Evaluate and make recommendations on how to improve environmental review
2. Evaluate and make recommendations for improved environmental governance and
coordination

This is the part I find disturbing — tell me, how does this relate to the charge:

The elements of the evaluation directed by EQB included:

• Look at the original intent of environmental review and consider if circumstances in Minnesota have changed such that a fundamental change in the original intent is needed.

It also claims that:

The intent of this draft report is to provide a transparent depiction of the process
that was used to develop recommendations and allow for broad public review of the
recommendations.

Where’s the “broad public review” of this report?  There is NONE!  It’s up to us, folks, to go over this and review it and comment on it, because so far, “broad public review” hasn’t been happening.

The part that is most disturbing to me is the way they’re trying to reframe “intent.”  I don’t know where this came from, E.O. 11-32 says not one word about “intent” of environmental review — that’s a legislative mandate from decades ago.  Who wrote this?  Was it our good friend Charlie Peterson who wrote it, the one who facilitated these meetings, the one who facilitated the CapX 2020 Task Forces so abysmally, going far afield of the charge?  Where does the writer of this report get any direction or authority to rewrite legislation, legislative history, and redefine the intent of environmental review?

Here’s what’s in the “final” report, p. 5-6, approved by the EQB on November 14, 2012:

Working Draft of Intent

Based on review of statute and rule, agency staff has developed a working draft of the
intent of environmental review:

Understand the environmental effects of proposed projects in order to promote harmony between human activities and the environment, with consideration of both short and long term social and economic needs of the state.

Principles:
• Providing information for decision makers and project proposers
• Coordination with federal, state and local agencies
• Public involvement in decision making
• Efficiency in process

With this as working draft of intent agency staff believe the original intent of environmental review is just as valid today as it was first envisioned by the legislature in the 1970s. One significant difference between the 1970s and today is the “information” that is available, needed, and desired for achieving harmony between human activities and the environment. The information and technology available is much greater today, but there is also a better understanding of the complexity of environmental systems and the challenges with predicting and implementing harmony with human activities.

What’s wrong with that?  Take a closer look.  The problem is the part about “consideration of both short and long term social and economic needs of the state.”  Environmental review is to look at impacts, to provide information, and it is not about “consideration of both short and long term social and economic needs of the state.”  Environmental review has never done a thorough cost/benefit analysis.  Social and economic impacts are supposed to be addressed in environmental review, but “NEEDS”  — let’s talk about what the social “needs” of the state are, and let’s talk about what the economic “needs” of the state are.  Who decides what a social or economic “need” is, and what weight to give it?  If this report is any indication, we’re in trouble.  Look in Appendix D at the weights given to the groups, and you’ll see that in the identical categories, when asked to pick the most important issues, some groups get more votes than others.  Whose opinion counts more?  Look at their Appendix D to see.

Send in your comments on the studies, let them know you’re commenting on the studies and then tell them what you have to say, and note that something this important does indeed require a “broad public review.”  At least, that’s this broad’s opinion!