Legalectric

Remember that infrastructure?

Yeah, THAT infrastructure, the pine roots and granite. Well, Dispositive Motions were due, and we filed the Motion for Summary Judgment because to be defined as an Innovative Energy Project, and to be entitled to all those perks like $$$$ from state and exemption from Certificate of Need and and and and and and, the IRR must designate the site as one that is in a taconite tax relief zone, which it is, and that the site has “adequate infrastructure for new or expanded development.” See for yourself, here’s THE BILL – search for “Innovative Energy Project.” I’m arguing that there’s no issue of fact, we all agree there is no infrastructure, so throw out the West site, it’s not an Innovative Energy Project.

Responses were due today, and what fun. Here they are — take the time to read Excelsior’s and look at Exhibit B which is an admission of lack of infrastructure any way you look at it.. WE’LL BE ARGUING ABOUT THIS ON THURSDAY, EVEN MORE FUN!!!

Xcel’s:
xe-response-to-mcgp-motion-for-partial-summary-judgment.pdf

Excelsior’s, Exhibit B says it all:
excelsior-memo-in-opposition-to-mcgp-sj-motion.pdf
exhibit-a-jpa-pp-14-15.pdf
exhibit-b-figure-21-2.pdf

Excelsior starts out with a whine and goes downhill from there:

This agrument is little more than a thinly disguised “Not In My Backyard” protest to the development of the Mesaba Project on the preferred West Range Site.

Excelsior agrees that the IRR Commissioner is to designate the site as qualifying as an Innovative Energy Project, that it is “a site that has substantial real property with adequate infrastructure to support new or expanded development.” But there we diverge:

Here, the record clearly demonstrates that IRR engaged in a thorough factual investigation before it designated the West Range Site as a site with “adequate infrastructure to support new or expanded development.” including agency staff walk-through’s(sic) of the proposed site, review of the detailed site maps, consultation with state and federal agencies, and participation in the Excelsior Energy/United States Department of Energy site visits for two days in June of 2005.

GUESS AGAIN – the DOE visit was THREE days, and one IRR rep, David Hart, skipped out after the first day, and the other, Mike Hanson, skipped out in the middle of day two and was not present for day three! Commissioner Sandy Layman was not on the site visits and appears to have no first hand knowledge of the sites — it’s her reputation and credibility riding on this designation. The ToMO map and aerial photo of the West site show there’s NOTHING there, pine trees and wetlands, that’s it! Yup, you betcha, I’m going to haul in the Commissioner and have her point out the “adequate infrastructure!” I’ve subpoenead her, and this will be just too much fun, we could sell tickets, yup, pine roots and granite, that’s “adequate infrastructure” all right. Do they really want this on the record?
Note: There’s no dispute of facts, they’re making a legal argument about authority and interpretation of statutes so hey, let’s go! That’s what Summary Judgment is all about!

In case you’ve forgotten, here’s my Motion, and again, Exhibit B says it all:

mcgp-motion-partial-sj.pdf
mcgp-motion-partial-sj-exhibit-a-irrrb-nov-7-2005.pdf
mcgp-motion-partial-sj-exhibit-b-figure-9-infrastructure-requirements-excelsior-report-sectioniv-page-15.pdf
mcgp-motion-partial-sj-exhibit-c-january-26-2006-irr-letter-to-clark.pdf
mcgp-motion-partial-sj-exhibit-d-march-22-2006-irr-letter-to-clark.pdf
mcgp-motion-partial-sj-exhibit-e-site-visit-june-8-10-agenda-list-etc-part-i-selected.pdf
mcgp-motion-partial-sj-exhibit-f-seh-public-infrastructure-improvement-study-january-2006-selected.pdf
mcgp-motion-partial-sj-exhibit-g-capital-budget-request-to-dof-infrastructure-bonding-june-15-2005.pdf
mcgp-motion-partial-sj-exhibit-h-nm-spg-mesabi-update081606-1.ppt
mcgp-motion-partial-sj-exhibit-i-g519_systemimpactstudy_report_rev-june-06-selected.pdf
mcgp-motion-partial-sj-exhibit-j-osbl-estimate-west-range.pdf