Recently the City of Northfield took up complaints from residents about flooding, and is in the process of “assessment,” and is looking at “mitigation.” This popped up on my screen today and caught my attention:

City Council considers funding infrastructure upgrades to flooded residences

And this part in particular:

Here’s the packet from the March 1 planning meeting:

Couple of issues:

FIRST: Mitigation of water issues is NOT something new, this was an issue when the City platted the “Presidential” subdivision of townhouses decades ago, where they eliminated a large part of Grant Park, which was supposed to have been deeded over with a prior subdivision development, and the developer planned to put townhouses over a drainage swale! The City approved that bright idea!

The green line going into Grant Park is the swale, and the Presidential Drive and Constitution Drive, the plan was to stick houses on the north end of that “U.” All the houses along Spruce Drive to the north would be affected. Thankfully Russ Matson, whose house is on the eastern side there, objected and we raised hell, and SUCCESS (sort of). The City and Developer nixed the plan to put townhouses there.

You can see the water drainage pathway from the northwest into that Grant Park pond:

Looking at the multiple locations in the “assessment” map above, this may be a systemic drainage problem, and it may be a systemic platting problem associated with trying to cram in as many homes as possible in places where perhaps they shouldn’t be! Much of the east side of Northfield where the pool is was a swamp. Other areas too? Is the City taking this into consideration, particularly with the weather extremes we’re experiencing?

Parking it here for future reference.

Here it is:

PJM 2021 State of the Market Report

Note that where NERC does not project a significant decrease in coal production, PJM’s coal generation increased from 2020 to 2021 (now we do need to keep in mind that 2020 was a very low demand year):

Here’s an overall summary:

The big takeaway is that demand has increased over 2020, which is no surprise. Note the “Average Hourly Load” and “Average Hourly Generation” and compare with “Installed Capacity.” Capacity is essentially twice Average Hourly Load and Average Hourly generation (and note exports and imports are included).

And just for shits and giggles, here’s the PJM LOCATIONAL MARGINAL PRICING MAP!

And here’s MISO’s too:

MISO LMP Map

What it looks like right now in MISO:

Do we really need to go through all this again? I guess, as with nuclear waste dry casks, I’ll have to dig through the porch and attic for my files.

Today, comments were due on a “rulemaking” question from the Public Utilities Commission, with a very limited about “should the Commission amend the pipeline rules to include CO2 as a hazardous gas.” That limited, and nothing about whether they should initiate a more general rulemaking with CO2 specific provisions. GRRRRRRR.

Here’s my first Comment:

Overland – Initial Comment – CO2 pipeline

Here’s my Reply Comment filed yesterday:

Overland – Reply Comment

It is so infuriating to see the CO2 pipeline application filed in Iowa, and the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission having an “informational” planning session with only promotional toadies pushing for CO2 capture and storage and pipelines:

Earth to Mars, where’s the notion of ELIMINATION of CO2 generation?

SIMPLYINFO.ORG

Great job of keeping us posted!