Legalectric

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!

Fun stuff happening at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.  Remember the outrageous rates that FERC approved for CapX 2020 and PSEG’s Susquehanna-Roseland, over 12% rate of return on equity in this day of 3.25% prime rate?  Environment Northeast is taking this issue to FERC, and have filed a Complaint and are requesting that the rate on equity (ROE) allowed be lowered:

Environment Northeast (ENE) Complaint to FERC

Read this Complaint!  It’s very clear about why:

Based on economic data and Dr. Woolridge’s DCF [Discounted Cash Flow Model] analysis, the current base ROE [Return on Equity] of 11.14% is excessive.  In light of changed economic conditions and his DCF analysis, Dr. Woolridge concludes that the just and reasonable base ROE for the NETOs [New England Transmission Owners] is 8.7%.

Complaint Ex. C-1, p. 2 of 42.  Here’s Exhibit C-107, p. 2 of 2, Panel A, showing Moody’s Long-Term Public Utility Bond Yields — can you see why utilities are so fond of the FERC Return on Equity Orders?  This is not rocket science:

An interesting exhibit, well, ALL of them are interesting, but check Exhibit C-110, statistics for their “Electric Proxy Group” which includes some of our nearest and dearest utilities (click on charts for larger view):

And this one, also from Exhibit C-110, addressing comparative risk metrics for their group of utilities with the “Electric Proxy Group” which, again, includes some of our local utilities (note Xcel’s ratings of B++, And ALLETE/Minnesota Power’s A):

And 10 year US Treasury Yields:

FERC has issued Notice, which sets out how you can participate, including filing requirements and process:

FERC Notice – ENE Complaint Docket EL13-33

Initial comments, protests and interventions are due January 16, 2013.  Use FERC’s eFiling HERE!

If you are unable to file electronically (but it pays to figure it out and eliminate hard copies!), send to:

FERC

888 1st St. NE

Washington, DC  20426

Enjoy!