Legalectric

It’s on the MN eDemocracy Forum, it’s in the STrib, and his dreams of being President are my nightmare.

From the STrib:

Where will Pawlenty’s legacy lead?

My take is another matter:

Pawlenty’s legacy — I was reminded of it yesterday as I testified for the 13, 14 or15th time at the PPSA Annual Hearing and spent too many hours in prep, reminded of the changes over his tenure.

Pawlenty is the “Green Chameleon,” all the PR of being “green” yet promoting the most environmentally devastating options.

“Green Chameleon” for his promotion of the Excelsior Energy Mesaba Project, a coal gasification boondoggle on the range, throwing tens of millions of state (IRRB, RDF, DEED) money at it, illegally because environmental review wasn’t completed;

“Green Chameleon” for his promotion of the biggest and most costly transmission line build-out in Minnesota history, so big that Phase I required notification to over 80,000 landowners;

“Green Chameleon” for his promotion of ethanol as it stunk up St. Paul and drained one southwestern MN city’s aquifer dry;

“Green Chameleon” for the shift of “environmental review” of utility infrastructure projects to Dept. of Commerce under his watch;

“Green Chameleon” for promoting the 2005 Energy Omnibus Bill (Ch. 97) that substituted “regional” need for “Minnesota” need as a criteria for utility infrastructure, allowed transmission only companies (another step of deregulation);

“Green Chameleon” for, in 2006, signing off on the changes to Minn. Stat. 117.189 that exempted utilities from the landowner protective provisions in eminent domain;

“Green Chameleon” for no new taxes and failure to adequately fund agencies during a time of unprecedented number of permit proceedings, including a Commerce Dept. that doesn’t even have an electrical engineer on staff(!);

“Green Chameleon” for ushering in relicensing of Monticello and Prairie Island nuclear plants and increasing dry cask storage of high level nuclear waste on the Mississippi River at Monticello and Prairie Island at a time of unprecedented decrease in demand for electricity, Xcel alone down nearly 1,500MW since the 2006 peak;

“Green Chameleon” for doing everything possible through his agencies to limit, hamstring, thwart and silence public participation and fully informed decisions by Public Utilities Commission.

Can you tell I’m disgusted?  I could go on… it’s been a long 8 years.  The legacy of his energy policy, agency direction and muzzling of the public should have him aspirating on his aspirations.  We shall see…

And unfortunately I’m not confident it will be much different going forward.  Again, we shall see…

Carol A. Overland

Attorney representing citizens groups and landowners in utility infrastructure proceedings at PUC and local governments.
Living and officing in City of Red Wing, County of Goodhue, home of the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, the Goodhue County Wind Ordinance, and two garbage burners

As if a cell phone, green leather loveseat, camera USB cord, air filter A/C cord, shoes, boxes of pens, funky-patterned couch, utility knife holder (!), chair cushion, roll after roll of toilet paper, highlighter all over off-white throw, rug, another rug, doggy bed, comforter, several dozen socks, oh, and did I mention TWO couches???, as if that isn’t enough, oh, our dear little puppy really did it this time…

Alan’s working on the pantry, I’m hoping to get the washer off the deck soon, assuming we can find it out there in all the snow… and after sawing off a 2×4, went into the kitchen.  Ginger cheezecake was sitting out, THREE ginger cheezecakes were sitting out, and he didn’t put up the babygate, and Little Miss Counter Surfer ran in, from the kitchen all the way back in the office I heard the distinct sound of cheezecake going down, yelled “NO!” and ran in, it had hit the deck, cracked in a few pieces, Sadie headed under the dining room table, and Alan picked up what was left… as I put the gate up, she stood there, neck stretched out and snout against the edge, licking her lips… MORE PLEASE!!!  Dear Little Sadie…  MORE?  You want MORE???  YOU ATE 90% OF IT!

AAAAAAAAGH!

And she picked the too brown one that I was saving for US!  Oh, the little bitch… I am SO mad…

Mark 10:00 a.m. on December 28, 2010 on your calendar!

Notice – 2010 Power Plant Siting Act Annual Hearing

Notice – Additional Information – 2010 Annual Power Plant Annual Siting Act Hearing

10:00 a.m.  Tuesday, December 28, 2010

PUC Large Hearing Room – 3rd Floor

121 – 7th Place E.

St. Paul, MN  55101

It happens once a year, the Annual Power Plant Siting Act Hearing, which is our opportunity to tell them a thing or two, specifically what works and does not work about the Power Plant Siting Act.  If you’re affected by CapX 2020 transmission or other utility infrastructure, you sure know what DOESN’T work!!!  This is the time to let them know in technicolor, and to put together your legislative agenda for the coming session.

What’s new here is that they’re holding it before Eric Lipman, Administrative Law Judge, and are soliciting comments on specific questions:

l. In Chapter 216E, the Legislature directs the Commission to locate large electric power
facilities so that any siting is orderly, efficient and compatible with environmental
preservation. How well do the Commission’s procedures and practices meet these
mandates?

2. How well do the regulations found in Minnesota Rules Part 7850 meet the mandates of
Chapter 2l6E? Which rules, if any, should the Commission consider revising?

3. How well do the regulations found in Minnesota Rules Part 1405 meet the mandates of
Chapter 216E? Which rules, if any, should the Commission consider revising?
Comments are invited through presentation of oral or written statements.

Written statements may also be submitted to Judge Lipman by the close of business on February 1,2011 .  I’ll post the email address they’re using for this after the hearing or if I get it sooner.

We’ve been doing this for a while, here are the notes and reports to EQB/PUC — where there are no “Summary” notes, there were none online.  I’ve also noticed that the exhibits that the Reports say are attached are not, and yet if I go back to the docket, they are attached there (see 2007, taken from PUC eDockets, not Commerce site, which is missing the exhibits). To look at the full PUC eDocket for a particular year, look below for docket numbers, and then go to www.puc.state.mn.us and click “Search eDockets” and plug in the docket number.

2000 Summary of Proceedings

2000 Report EQB

2001 Summary of Proceedings

2001 Report EQB

2002 Summary of Proceedings

2002 Report to EQB

2003 Summary of Proceedings

2003 Report to EQB

2004 Summary of Proceedings

2004 Report to EQB

2005 Report to PUC

2006 Report to PUC – Docket 06-1733

2007 Report to PUC – Docket 07-1579

2008 Report to PUC – Docket 08-1426

2009 Report to PUC – Docket 09-1351

Here’s the law that’s the basis for it:

216E.07 ANNUAL HEARING.

The commission shall hold an annual public hearing at a time and place prescribed by rule in order to afford interested persons an opportunity to be heard regarding any matters relating to the siting of large electric generating power plants and routing of high-voltage transmission lines. At the meeting, the commission shall advise the public of the permits issued by the commission in the past year. The commission shall provide at least ten days but no more than 45 days’ notice of the annual meeting by mailing or serving electronically, as provided in section 216.17, a notice to those persons who have requested notice and by publication in the EQB Monitor and the commission’s weekly calendar.

History:  1973 c 591 s 8; 1975 c 271 s 6; 1977 c 439 s 11; 1980 c 615 s 60; 1982 c 424 s 130; 1984 c 640 s 32; 2001 c 212 art 7 s 17; 2005 c 97 art 3 s 9; 2007 c 10 s 12

Let me see if I understand this… we’ve got Ingrid Bjorklund, a wind industry lobbyist/employee now Commerce employee and Deb Pile, also Commerce, using Affidavits to argue LEGISLATIVE intent based on statements by Mike Bull, Commerce employee working under Pawlenty’s roof now working for Xcel.   EH?  LEGISLATIVE intent based on industry lobbyist/employee & Exec agency employee hearsay affidavits of Pawlenty’s Energy Boy.  Where’s the LEGISLATURE in legislative intent?  And what does Mike Bull have to say about this?

Duck and cover, Mikey!  Commerce has trained their sights on you!

HUH?  What’s going on?  Well, we just had a deadline for submittals in response to the First Prehearing Order in the AWA Goodhue Wind contested case regarding application of Goodhue County’s Wind Ordinance.  for the whole docket, go to www.puc.state.mn.us and click on “Search eDockets” and search for docket 08-1233.

Here’s the prelude to yesterday’s filings:

PUC’s Order – Referral to OAH

Goodhue County Wind Ordinance

Staff Chart of Differences between Goodhue Ordinance & State Standards prepared for PUC Chair Boyd

After a Prehearing Conference and the ALJ’s request for our positions in this case, we submitted memos and then the ALJ issued a Prehearing Order:

First Prehearing Order

In that order we were asked to set out the differences between county and state standards; whether county ordinance is a conflict, supplement, or something new; whether it should be applicable to this project; material facts regarding this issue; and what evidence we’d introduce. and here’s what was filed — where’s everybody else?  Anyway, read the Deb Pile and Ingrid Bjorklund Affidavits and note who’s sayin’ what, whose interests are at issue, whose intent is couched as “LEGISLATIVE” intent, and while you’re at it, ask just what role they had at that time.  Seems to me they’re putting it all on Mikey Bull.   Hey Mikey?!?!  Get ready!

Goodhue Wind Truth 2nd Prehearing Memo

Belle Creek Township 2nd Prehearing Memo

MOES Comments

MOES Comments – Attachment 1

MOES Comments – PUC Briefing Papers on Goodhue

MOES Comments – Affidavit of Deb Pile

MOES Comments – Affidavit of Ingrid Bjorklund

Click map for larger version:

PATH, the Potomac Appalachian Transmission Highline, is in trouble… AGAIN…

The good news is that the West Virginia Public Service Commission staff is challenging need for the PATH line, which was already postponed by PJM.  And then there’s these pesky states questioning the need, like Maryland, which challenged the corporate organizational form, noting that it wasn’t a utility so “get outta here!”

Now it’s time for the West Virginia PSC staff to raise its eyebrows and deliver a solid Motion to Dismiss:

WVa PSC Staff’s Motion to Dismiss PATH Application

For the entire docket, go here:

West Virginia PSC Docket for PATH Transmission Line

And here’s the way it looks in the press:

$2B PATH project faces dismissal by W. Va. regulators

Posted: 6:39 pm Thu, December 16, 2010
By Associated Press

CHARLESTON, W.Va. — An application to build a $2 billion power line from West Virginia to Maryland should be dismissed because less expensive alternatives should be considered first, say staff reviewing the project for the West Virginia Public Service Commission.

Developers of the Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline, or PATH, say the 765-kilovolt line is needed to meet projected power demand along the East Coast by 2015.

But PSC staff said it was “ludicrous” to continue with the project while changes to the region’s existing power grid are being contemplated. Staff specifically mentioned Virginia-based Dominion’s recent notice to rebuild its 500-kilovolt line from Mt. Storm in West Virginia to the Doubs substation in Maryland. That upgrade and other improvements are estimated to cost $500 million to $600 million.

Another planned project is the Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway in Maryland. The line is to provide power to the Delmarva Peninsula.

Dominion says the Mt. Storm-Doubs line, which was built in 1966, must be rebuilt to maintain service. Developers gave the line’s current condition as a justification for the PATH project and the separate Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line.

“The rebuild will be a more stable line with 65 percent increased capacity,” PSC staff said it its Dec. 10 filing. The additional capacity “will push the need for the PATH line further out on the horizon,” perhaps to 2020, staff wrote.

PATH is a joint venture of Allegheny Energy Co. and American Electric Power Co. The proposed 275-mile line would run from AEP’s John Amos plant in West Virginia, across three counties in Northern Virginia, to a substation near Kemptown in Frederick County.

At least 250 groups, representing landowners, The Sierra Club, local county commissions and boards of education are opposed to PATH’s construction. Many of them have submitted letters supporting the latest staff filing.

The filing marks the second time PSC staff has recommended the application be dismissed. In October 2009, staff sought to dismiss the application because Maryland’s utility commission had dismissed an application in that state, saying it had been improperly filed.

Instead, the utilities agreed to extend the deadline for when the PSC must make a decision from May 16, 2011, to July 28, 2011.

PATH spokeswoman Jeri Matheny said Thursday the Dominion line “ties in very well” with the PATH project. Also, once PATH is built the Dominion line can be taken out of service for a rebuild, he said.

Matheny did not have an immediate comment on the staff’s recommendation to dismiss the application, saying a formal response would be filed with the PSC next week.

Earlier this month PJM Interconnection approved the Mt. Storm-Doubs line, but also reaffirmed its support of the PATH project. PJM manages the electrical grid in a 13-state region.

If the three-member PSC doesn’t dismiss the PATH application, staff is asking that it require developers to submit new testimony regarding the economic and environmental aspects of the project. Staff is also asking that AEP and Allegheny Energy again agree to extend the decision deadline.

The commission has not taken any action on the staff’s recommendation, PSC spokeswoman Susan Small said Thursday.