Legalectric

… oh yes you did! Well, folks, sit down… When Mike Bull got in bed with Pawlenty, I thought that he’d gone to the dark side… but now, oh, my, Wind on the Wires? WOW! OH MY DOG!

May 15, 2008

Wind on the Wires Completes Key Hire of Regional Policy Manager

Wind on the Wires is pleased to announce the addition of a Regional Policy Manager to its staff.

Mike Bull, Deputy Director of the Minnesota Office of Energy Security will join the WOW staff on June 11, 2008 as Regional Policy Manager. Mike will focus on advancing wind power and transmission issues across Wind on the Wires 10 state footprint in the Midwest.

Mike has more than 15 years working on energy issues under Governors Tim Pawlenty and Jesse Ventura, and in the Office of Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch. Mike has negotiated and passed state legislation dealing with transmission infrastructure development, wind permitting and siting procedures, and community energy development.

Mike was also a lead negotiator for Governor Pawlenty in the effort that Governor Pawlenty co-chaired with Governor Jim Doyle of Wisconsin, to develop the landmark Midwest Governors Association Energy Security & Climate Stewardship platform announced in the fall of 2007. In that role Mike worked intensively with representatives of Governors in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota. In 2007 and 2008, Mike helped advise Governor Pawlenty in the development and implementation of the Governor’s National Governors Association initiative “Securing a Clean Energy Future” and has been working on Governor Pawlenty’s behalf with representatives from Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico to help establish the Governors Windpower Coalition.

Mike has also held non-partisan senior policy positions at the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission and in both bodies of the Minnesota Legislature. He has graduate degrees in Law and Public Policy from the University of Minnesota.

Please help us welcome Mike Bull to the WOW staff.

You can send him a sympathy card at this address:

Mike Bull

Wind on the Wires

1619 Dayton Ave., Suite 203

St. Paul, MN 55104

As he says, “Think of it… we’ll still be able to have so much fun.”  And yes, there’s all those Information Requests I sent to WOW, and hey, like WOW, maybe I should subpoena him to testify in CapX!!!

.

Something we all know, but that the St. Paul Port Authority wants to avoid:

The RCrAP group is subject to Open Meeting Law

HUH? Well, the RCrAP is the RockTenn Community Advisory Panel, assembled under the umbrella of the St. Paul Port Authority.

You can read the St. Paul Port Authority’s “Energy Independent Newsletter” here:

March-April 2008 Newsletter – SPPA

The Port Authority is using this committee as a way to get “community” buy-in to a garbage burner that the community doesn’t want.  If you don’t think it’s a garbage burner they’ve got in mind, read the Foth report:

Here’s the Foth Report

They’ve been trying to make Rock-Tenn happen, and to make it happen the way they want it to.  Toward this end, they’ve been having discussions over a private list-serve, not open to the public, despite calls for them to do so, and despite statements reminding them that they’re subject to Open Meeting Law. Their response? A loud and arrogant “OPEN MEETING LAW DOES NOT APPLY.”

Well, they’re wrong. So says the Minnesota Department of Administration, Opinion 08-007 — this is an opinion issued to the Port Authority after they specifically asked whether Open Meeting Law applies:

Opinion 08-007 – Open Meeting Law applies to RCAP

Here it is in its entirety, it’s too good to miss a word:

Facts and Procedural History:
On March 17, 2008, IPAD received a letter, dated March 14, 2008, from Lorrie Louder on behalf of the Rock Tenn Community Advisory Panel (RCAP). In her letter, Ms. Louder asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion whether RCAP was subject to the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D. Ms. Louder submitted the $200.00 fee required by section 13.072. In a letter to Ms. Louder dated March 20, 2008, IPAD requested additional information and clarification. Clarification was provided by Ms. Louder in a letter dated April 14, 2008, and received by IPAD on April 17, 2008.

A summary of the facts as presented by Ms. Louder is as follows.

In 2007, the Saint Paul Port Authority (SPPA) was provided with a one-time grant for a study related to a steam and electrical energy facility for Rock Tenn, a paper recycling facility in Saint Paul. As part of the grant, SPPA is required to convene a citizen’s advisory committee to advise on the scope of the study. This citizen’s advisory committee is composed of members recommended by four different district councils in Saint Paul and must meet regularly.

According to Ms. Louder, this committee is known as RCAP and has developed a consensus process using a facilitator so there is no chair of RCAP.

Issue:
Based on Ms. Louder’s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:

Is the Rock Tenn Community Advisory Panel subject to the requirements of the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D?

Discussion:
To assist in the analysis of whether RCAP is subject to the Open Meeting Law (OML), Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, some background is helpful.

There are several purposes for the OML. The Minnesota Supreme Court stated in Prior Lake American v. Mader, 642 N.W.2d 729 (Minn. 2002) that:

The Open Meeting Law serves several purposes:

(1) “to prohibit actions being taken at a secret meeting where it is impossible for the interested public to become fully informed concerning [public bodies’] decisions or to detect improper influences;” (2) “to assure the public’s right to be informed;” and (3) “to afford the public an opportunity to present its views to the [public body].” St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. Dist. 742 Cmty. Schs., 332 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Minn. 1983)(citations omitted). These purposes are deeply rooted in the fundamental proposition that a well-informed populace is essential to the vitality of our democratic form of government. (footnote omitted)

Because the Open Meeting Law was enacted for the public benefit, we construe it in favor of public access. State by Archabal v. County of Hennepin, 505 N.W.2d 294, 297 (Minn. 1993); see St. Cloud Newspapers, 332 N.W.2d at 6 (stating that the Open Meeting Law “will be liberally construed in order to protect the public’s right to full access to the decisionmaking process of public bodies”).

Prior Lake American at 735. With this background and the Court’s instruction to construe the law in favor of public access, the next step is to review the issue presented by RCAP.

Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01 lists the government organizations that are subject to the OML. These government organizations are referred to as “public bodies.” Subdivision 1 of this section states, in pertinent part:

All meetings, including executive sessions, must be open to the public: . . .

(c) of any
(1) committee,
. . .
of a public body;

According to 2007 Session Laws, Chapter 57, Article 2, Section 3, RCAP is a committee operating under the auspices of the SPPA. The study must do the following:

(1) assess the economic and technical feasibility of various fuel types to power the plant;
(2) provide a full description and analysis of each fuel type and their respective economic and noneconomic impacts;
(3) provide a full description and analysis of each fuel type and their respective environmental emissions, including carbon dioxide, and the cost of controlling those emissions that affect human health;
(4) describe public subsidies related to the production and use of each fuel type;
(5) describe potential energy efficiency improvement that can be made to the paper recycling operations and subsidies available for each improvement; and
(6) evaluate additional uses for the steam and electricity produced at the facility and the cost of infrastructure needed to implement the additional uses.

In addition, the Legislature also gave RCAP the authority to issue recommendations on these study topics that are separate from those presented by SPPA.

All of these functions are actions taken on behalf of citizens who will be impacted by the decisions that are made about providing energy to the Rock Tenn recycling operation. As stated by the Minnesota Supreme Court in the Prior Lake American case, these are the types of discussions that should occur in public and any decision should be made in public.

The next question then is whether the RCAP is a “public body” and so subject to the OML. The SPPA is a public corporation created in 1929. According to Minnesota Statutes, section 465.719, subdivision 9, public corporations created before May 31, 1997, cannot be exempted from the OML. As a committee of a public body, RCAP is subject to the OML.

Opinion:
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Ms. Louder raised is as follows:

The Rock Tenn Community Advisory Panel is subject to the requirements of the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D.

Signed:

Dana B. Badgerow
Commissioner

Dated: May 1, 2008

So, there you have it!

Here’s Dave Sparby telling us about Xcel’s plans — he’s now “acting President and CEO of NSP-Minnesota.” And to think I remember when he was a mere attorney, Xcel’s inhouse counsel.

Today was Xcel’s annual breakfast with “community leaders” in Red Wing, so despite a very late night (where’s the coffee!), I got to the St. James Hotel just in time for to miss the line and have breakfast on Xcel! There was room at a table with the Goodhue County solid waste crew, and I did a good job of hitting the leg of the table and dumping coffee all over, but Alan had a good discussion with them about burning garbage, an appetite stimulating subject, but food for thought.

Mike Wadley was there of course, looking like quite the old fart these days, but that’s what serving a sentence with Micheletti will do for ya. He’s back in the saddle at Prairie Island, and one thing in his spiel that was interesting was that NMC will soon disappear and they’ll all go back to Xcel. I’ve been wondering about that, because the purpose of Nuclear Management Company was to house nuclear when it was spun off in deregulation, which never happened, THANK DOG! They spun off operations of the MN plants and also WI and IA to NMC in 2000, I intervened in that, and they intended to spin off ownership, but deregulation didn’t happen so they didn’t, and now all but the Xcel nuclear plants have disappeared from NMC operation. This will probably require another NRC proceeding, and I guess another intervention… sigh… but he’d bribed me with deck chairs before, and he’s getting the hang of it — today he says, “How ’bout a couch?!?” (proof they’re monitoring the mic and peeking in the windows, Krie’s torn up my 9′ long pink leather “doggie bed,” her station to monitor goings on across the street, it’s in pieces and I’ve got to do something). OK, Mike, I’ll take one rugged couch covered in indoor/outdoor carpeting, but it must be preapproved by Krie and Kenya!

A big deal in this is relicensing of Prairie Island nuclear generating plant, and that application is in, and again, THANK YOU to Mike Wadley, Chris Clark and Jim Alders, whoever it was who did cough up an application for me. It’s making for interesting reading.

They had question answer time, and I asked that, given the new IRP says that “For capacity planning and RES compliance planning purposes, we are assuming that Red Wing and Wilmarth will be retired at the end of 2012,” whether they’d be closing it or selling it. Oh my, guess who farted in the elevator again. They were backpeddling, oh, NO, it doesn’t say that… uh-huh, right… well, guys, take a look at p. 6-7 and the top of 6-8 and you tell me. They will provide the commission with an update in the next IRP. I look forward to seeing it and hope that this thing is out of my neighborhood. Once more with feeling:

For capacity planning and RES compliance planning purposes, we are assuming that Red Wing and Wilmarth will be retired at the end of 2012.

So, on that happy note, time to move on to lunch — and thanks to Dave Sparby for taking the time to chat about a host of thorny issues that we’ll be duking it out about over the next few years! CapX anyone?

Here’s the Salem & Hope Creek reactors on the Delaware River, just across from Port Penn. Doesn’t flooding shut down nuclear plants?

Kent County is evacuating coastal communities… Delaware City, just north of Port Penn, is several inches deep on the main drag through town, and the trailer park is flooded worse.

From today’s STrib – better check the News Urinal too (below):

Evacuations in progress in coastal Delaware;tides, rain, flooding communities
Associated Press

May 12, 2008

KITTS HUMMOCK, Del. – Delaware officials say evacuations are in progress in flooded coastal communities.

Allen Metheny, assistant director of emergency management in Kent County, says rescuers are evacuating as many of the coastal communities as they can. High tides and heavy rains have flooded roads, requiring the assistance of the Delaware National Guard and the Delaware State Police in the evacuation operation.

Metheny says the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control is also providing assistance.

And here’s from the Delaware News Journal:

Storm knocks down trees, cuts power; evacuations ordered along Del. Bay

By DAMIAN GILETTO and JAMES MERRIWEATHER • The News Journal • May 12, 2008

A major storm that brought heavy rain and high winds overnight felled trees and knocked out power across the state, and forced boat evacuations of coastal residents along the Delaware Bay.

In Kent County, the Emergency Management Division of the Department of Public Safety posted a mandatory evacuation order for Kitts Hummock and Pickering Beach along the Delaware Bay. Bret Scott, a county spokesman, said that, as of 8 a.m., about 150 residents had been evacuated from Kitts Hummock and that most of the county’s coastal communities were experiencing flooding.

The Kitts Hummock Fraternal Order of Police Lodge and the Little Creek Fire Hall were pressed into service as emergency shelters, Scott said.

“We continue to monitor the flooding, and we have concerns about all low-lying areas of the county,” Scott said. “We have flooding in all our coastal communities. It’s just worse in some areas than others.”

Residents who need assistance should call 911.

At Kitts Hummock, emergency responders were taking evacuees to the Little Creek Fire Hall.

Anthony Willing waited near the evacuation zone to find out whether his father had been evacuated.

“I don’t know if they took him out – I’m down here to find out,” Willing said.

He said that the water level there was about halfway up the side of a car, and that he had seen 250-gallon fuel tanks floating in the water.

James Mariana said his father, mother and dog were evacuated from the area by boat at around 6 a.m.

The evacuations over a wide area included places like Woodland Beach and Bowers Beach, an official with the Kent County fire board said.

Jeff Howell, of the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control’s Division of Fish and Wildlife, says his crew had extricated about 80 people this morning.

At Bowers Beach, the flow was more than two feet above the height of a dock.

In Dover, the St. Jones River jumped its banks and broke a record for flow on this day.

But at Dover Air Force Base, even during 40- and 50-mile-an-hour gusts, crews are out mowing the grass and doing routine checks of cars entering the base – opening the hoods and having people step out of their vehicles.

Lake Forest School District reported buses were unable to reach some flooded areas.

Carol Cathell of the Sussex County Emergency Operations Center reported localized flooding, “lots of power outages” and wires and trees down. Among other damage, a power pole fell on a house in Gumboro, part of a roof was blown off a house in Frankford and Mountaire, the poultry processor, lost the roof of a storage building at its Millsboro location.

The National Weather Service issued a wind advisory until 4 p.m., with gusts reaching 56 mph overnight at New Castle Airport.

In Delaware City, water several inches deep made travel difficult on Del. 9.

At the Del. 9 and Del. 72 intersection, a traffic light was partially knocked down, low enough to obstruct high vehicles.

Delmarva Power is reporting that more than 24,000 customers are without power in Delaware and Maryland, according to the company’s website..

More than 10,000 of the outages are in New Castle County.

The Delaware Electric Cooperative, which serves mostly Kent and Sussex counties, is reporting about 250 customers without power, down from 1,300 earlier today.

WHOOOO-EEEEEEEEEEEEE!

ALJs Recommend that Big Stone II transmission Certificate of Need and Routing Permit be denied.

Can you believe it??? Here’s Recommendation:

ALJs Recommendation — Denial of Certificate of Need & Routing Permits

Amazing…

In the St. Paul Pioneer Press with “Comment Opportunity”:

A reversal on coal plant

Here’s the STrib article:

Judges deliver major setback to Big Stone II project

Nothing in Sioux Falls Argus Leader yet…

In the Forum Newspapers with Comment Opportunity:

Willmar Tribune: Judges say Reject Big Stone request

Worthington Daily Globe: Judges say Reject Big Stone request

Forum Newspapers that don’t allow comments (why not?!?!?!)

Nothing in the Bismarck Tribune yet

Fargo Forum: Decision setback for plant

There’s a post on Gristmill, but it’s not coming up…

On MPR today:

Judge delivers setback to Big stone II

The next step is that the parties submit “Exceptions” to the Recommendation (our issues with it, the things we’d want to see different), and then it goes before the PUC. It usually takes at least a month. The PUC can accept the Recommendation, Deny the Recommendation with specific reasons why, or somewhere in between, as they did with Mesaba, accept parts, deny parts, and so there’s no way to tell what might happen.

mncoalgasplant.com is a limited intervenor in this docket, because Excelsior Energy had intervened and was arguing that the Big Stone utilities should buy Mesaba Project electricity instead of building that plant.

To see the entire PUC docket, go HERE and then search for Docket 05-619.

This Recommendation of DENIAL is certainly a problem for Big Stone II. Without transmission, it won’t go anywhere, but then again, there’s always CapX 2020! Remember where CapX 2020 goes? Look at this SW map — why, that would work just fine! But nooooooooo…