CapX2020 Transmission — 200,000 landowners affected
August 2nd, 2006
.
Transmission happens… that’s the big lesson of the 2005 Transmission Omnibus Bill from Hell. This bill gave utilities everything they ever wanted in a transmission bill, carte blanche, enough to make any property owner blanch. And you’d better get ready, because transmission is coming to a field and town near you! Skeptics say “Oh, right” but hey, I’ve got THREE lines coming to Red Wing, THREE, and TWO in “Phase I” of the CapX2020 plan. Phase I list HERE! And to get an idea what’s in store, here’s the full REPORT.
This big long list of projects comin’ to town is on my brain because Notice Plans have been issued for three of them, two of them coming to Red Wing, one in and one out, and the other is the Chisago Project, and I represented CRVC in the latter part of their struggle against that line.
I was talking with Bob Cupit, Energy Pooh-Bah at Commerce, and he mentioned that the CapX2020 folks had told him that 200,000 landowners would be affected by all these transmission projects around the state. 200,000! And Bob’s not one to exaggerate!
200,000 landowners. I’m thinking of having 200,000 thank you notes printed out for those 200,000 landowners to send George Crocker, North American Water Office, and Bill Grant , Izaak Walton League, to thank them for this bill that they pushed through. The 2005 Transmission Omnibus Bill from Hell was ushered through the legislature as “a deal, a package deal, and it’s a good deal,” and they would not alter it. So now this is the price, 200,000 landowners with transmission over their land. Thank you, George! Thank you, Bill! This is your legacy. For me, I’m likely to get some work out of it, because who else knows anything about transmission, but the magnitude of this turns my stomach. Much as I love my work, there is nothing worse than having clients losing their homes, their land, and now that the 2005 Transmission Omnibus Bill from Hell went through, it’s awfully hard to stop a transmission line. When utilities can claim “regional” need, and no longer have to prove the line is to serve local load, there’s not a lot to fight about! Thanks, George! Thanks, Bill! This is your legacy and you will have to live with what you’ve done — and I’m not about to let anyone forget the roots of all these transmission lines and eminent domain proceedings in our energy future.
If you want to salvage your souls, you’ve got to renounced the “deal, a package deal, and it’s a good deal” and do what it takes to undo the 2005 Transmission Omnibus Bill from Hell. And your TRANSLink deal, where you bargained away the public interest and gave TRANSLink (Xcel, etc.) all they wanted, and the material terms of which became the 2005 Transmission Omnibus Bill from Hell, renounce it. Renounce the TRANSLink deal and the 2005 transmission deal. Disclose whatever it was you got, give it back, give it all back! Get to work! And in the meantime, you’ve got a lot of explaining to do to 200,000 landowners. And do your constituents know what you’ve done?
As I talk with my Chisago Project folks, it’s clear to us that it’s not the same fight. The rules, the criteria, have changed, and we’re going to have to find a whole ‘nother approach. Maybe a good place to start would be the earlier deal between NSP and the City of Taylors Falls and the City of St. Croix Falls (that deal that George was stumping for at the Festival Theater, urging CRVC to adopt it, hmmmmmmmm…). If just alluding to that deal was enough to spur former Mayor Lundgren (now felon) of St. Croix Falls to order me arrested at a public meeting, it’s worth some digging…
200,000 landowners — transmission coming soon to a field and town near you!
August 9th, 2006 at 9:02 pm
This is ostensibly from Diane Gerth, attorney at Leonard, Street & Deinard:
Dear Carol,
Someone pointed me to a post in your blog that went up recently that I think contains some mistaken information about your role and representation of the Concerned River Valley Citizens group during the 1997-2000 time frame.
In your August 2, 2006, post at http://legalectric.org/weblog/395/, you claim to have represented CRVC during the late 1990â??s and the post includes a link to a page that highlights the successful efforts of the group in stopping the 1996 version of the Chisago Project. Taken as a whole, the post leaves the impression that you represented CRVC during the OAHâ??s consideration of the application for the transmission line, and that your efforts led to the withdrawal of the permit application. As we know, it was the law firm of Leonard, Street and Deinard (specifically Hans Bjornson and myself) who represented CRVC at that time.
The purpose of this note is to ask that you set the record straight on this matter on your blog. Iâ??m asking that the post be edited to make it clear that it was not your representation of CRVC that resulted in the withdrawal of the application, but rather the efforts of the attorneys from Leonard, Street & Deinard. In addition, because things are often unclear on the internet, it is difficult to tell from the post whether you are claiming to have supported the settlement that was worked out but never consummated. If you recall, you were opposed to the settlement and I think that the post would be less confusing if it accurately conveyed this.
I’m sure that these mistaken impressions can be cleared up. Thank you.
Diane Gerth
August 9th, 2006 at 9:07 pm
And here’s my response:
Diane (copying Bill & Shellene) –
Can you provide a reference for the part you’re objecting to? This is the link: http://legalectric.org/search/Chisago/
I don’t see where I say I was representing them in the “late 1990’s” anywhere. I see a reference to “my CRVC folks” and I see the reference to the Festival Theater meeting (perhaps you’re not aware that it was my Motion to reject the agreement that was voted on and passed??). Here’s that quote:
As I talk with my Chisago Project folks, itâ??s clear to us that itâ??s not the same fight. The rules, the criteria, have changed, and weâ??re going to have to find a whole â??nother approach. Maybe a good place to start would be the earlier deal between NSP and the City of Taylors Falls and the City of St. Croix Falls (that deal that George was stumping for at the Festival Theater, urging CRVC to adopt it, hmmmmmmmmâ?¦). If just alluding to that deal was enough to spur former Mayor Lundgren (now felon) of St. Croix Falls to order me arrested at a public meeting, itâ??s worth some diggingâ?¦
In this part, early in the entry, here’s another reference to Chisago == I’m clear that my representation was limited:
This big long list of projects cominâ?? to town is on my brain because Notice Plans have been issued for three of them, two of them coming to Red Wing, one in and one out, and the other is the Chisago Project, and I represented CRVC in the latter part of their struggle against that line.
I don’t get it, I don’t see any misrepresentation. I represented them in the latest incarnation of that returning fight, 2002, for the reopening in WI and in MN, though MN faded and in 2003 nothing came of it.
I’ll post your comment.
If I’m missing something here, please let me know, but this is what I see referencing Chisago in that post.
Are you referring to something other than that August 2 post?
Carol
August 15th, 2006 at 6:06 pm
“Ostensibly”? Carol, do you think I’m impersonating myself?
What I sent you was a private email asking you to clarify something that I think is misleading. I didn’t give you permission to either post it of forward it to other people, but you’ve done both. I can’t help that you’ve forwarded it to other people, but please remove it from the comments on this site.
Diane Gerth