Legalectric

On May 12, 2022, the DOE released a “Notice of Intent and Request for Information Regarding Establishment of a Transmission Facilitation Program.” Comments are due June 13. Here’s the Federal Register publication:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-05-12/pdf/2022-10137.pdf

One aspect that particularly concerns me is focus on NIETC transmission corridors, designated more than a decade ago, 2005 to be precise, and also containing a category of claimed need for “transmission across more than one state or transmission region.” That criteria would apply to almost every transmission project I’ve worked on, although most were segmented (so that the full extent of the project would not be considered or evaluated, DOH!):

What to comment on? Go to the above Federal Register link, and specific issues for comment start on page 6, “Questions for Requests for Information.” However, if you know of issues that should be considered but are not specified, have at it, put it down in detail.

I do get a little paranoid when they request comments on subjects like this — that “barriers to transmission” is one often raised by Beth Soholt, WOW (now as “Clean Grid Alliance” even more directly identifiable as transmission toadies), and here it is:

Comments are due by June 13, and should be sent to the “Federal eRulemaking Portal” (the only option), and must include the “agency name and identifier.” The agency is “Grid Deployment Office, Department of Energy.”

A decade ago or more, our state agencies eliminated consideration and scrutiny of “need” for transmission by making transmission a “regional” and market matter, making state permitting review nothing more than a rubber stamp. There’s never been a transmission proposal that state agencies didn’t love, rubber stamping everything that came their way. Now that fossil is to be shut down, that should free up immense capacity, but you’ll note that that doesn’t ever seem to be in the mix. Even NERC notes that fossil generation isn’t projected to decrease much, and locally, a good example is GRE’s walk-back on their promise to close Coal Creek, and instead “sold” the plant and transmission, and signed PPA to buy the Coal Creek generated energy.

Here’s NERC’s 2021 Long Term Reliability Assessment’s projection of MW of resources, note that coal doesn’t seem to be going anywhere anytime soon:

If shuttering down fossil is not incorporated into the transmission capacity “need,” exactly what are they basing the “need” claim on? Inquiring minds want to know.

Anyway, do check out the request for comments and let them have it. There are a many specific issues presented that has something for everyone!

Freeborn Wind permit (and standard language in all permits) has noise limits, the state standard (Minn. R. 7030.0040) and permit condition limits:

Xcel’s conslutant’s noise monitoring report (2 parts):

And then Commerce-EERA wants to review and “analyze” it and here’s the result, released yesterday:

Despite documented noise exceedences, they craft it to this result:

… sigh… it starts out promising:

What it looks like is that the measurements of noise monitoring aren’t taken seriously, and that “binning” is used to obfuscate and dismiss testing and monitoring results that show noise levels above those permitted.

Remember the ALJ’s recommendation for this project, that the permit be denied because Freeborn had not demonstrated it could comply with noise standards?

OAH+80-2500-34633+Final+Order

WE WON!!! ALJ Recommend Freeborn Permit be DENIED, or… May 14th, 2018

And then the PUC bends over and gives Freeborn/Xcel what it wants:

Freeborn? PUC upends ALJ’s Freeborn Wind Recommendation September 21st, 2018

To challenge this, hiring a noise expert is necessary, and then it’s time to sue their collective asses. It becomes the responsibility of those affected by the wind project’s incursion on their land to raise the objections and foot the bill. Fair? Equity? Justice? In what world…

Investigation into the City of Minneapolis and the Minneapolis Police Department: Findings from the Minnesota Department of Human Rights

It’s pretty damning, documents the systemic racism and maltreatment. Not news really, to anyone who’s paying attention. This should be hard for the City and MPD to ignore.

It’s out, the Prairie Island Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, here are the pieces from the Commerce-EERA site. Check it out and register your comments by May 10, 2022:

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) — Prairie Island Nuclear Plant

• SEIS Text
• Appendix A – Scoping Decision
• Appendix B – Safety of Spent Fuel Storage
• Appendix C – Cask and Canister Handling Processes
• Appendix D – Safety of Spent Fuel Transportation
• Appendix E – Comments on the Draft SEIS and Responses
  • Pages 1 – 18
  • Pages 19 – 34
  • Pages 35 – 37
  • Pages 38 – 40
  • Pages 41 – 58
  • Pages 59 – 78
  • Pages 79 – 98
  • Pages 99 – 118 

There doesn’t seem to be a link to a “one stop shopping” pdf of the entire thing.

You can also find the SEIS at the Red Wing Library.

Next steps? Comments on adequacy of the SEIS.

COMMENTS DUE MAY 10, 2022

I first learned of this project when a friend in the neighborhood send a flyer and talking points from a meeting held up there in 2019, so I looked into it then, and there wasn’t much available:

Tamarack copper-nickel exploration? November 13th, 2019

This was the map of the site then:

DNR? Find a summary report and associated map of the proposed exploration related activities at the DNR’s exploration plan webpage. Their “exploration plan” was submitted on March 8, 2022 and approved on March ? … page was just updated, says now it was approved April 12, 2022. TODAY?!?!

Per the DNR page:

Here’s the latest map, published by DNR last month, with the Summary Report and Associated Map (DNR Source)  PDF . Note it was “Talon Metals” a while ago, and now on the DNR docs it’s “Talon Nickel LLC.”

And earlier there was these psychedelic maps that reminded me of knee surgery! Check it out:

Talon Metals near Tamarack? January 28th, 2021

Here’s what they claim for “resources” at the site:

Talon Metals is based in the Virgin Islands, c/o Craigmuir Chambers, P.O Box 71, Road Town, Tortola
British Virgin Islands, and the P.O. Box reminds me of Goodhue Wind’s office in the Goodhue Post Office!

Talon Metals does have a page for this project:

Tamarack Mine – Nickel Copper Cobalt – Talon Metals Corp

But when the Center of the American Experiment locks onto something, that’s a sign to pay attention:

Tamarack nickel mine could begin mining by 2026

Dream on…

Anyway, another email about this appeared recently, and there was a reference to:

www.tamarackwateralliance.org – with ZERO info on who the heck this is, what orgs are involved, no information whatsoever. That’s a big red flag for me.

There is this on that page, but again, no entities, individuals, no identification whatsoever:

Tamarack Water Alliance Consolidated Community Meeting Presentation

Inquiring minds want to know… I really don’t give credibility to anonymous info and sites out there on the interwebs.

This Talon project must be challenged, and STOPPED!

Found this, at the DNR’s News and Public Notices page:

March 15, 2022 – Plan submitted to explore on state nonferrous metallic minerals lease

Talon Nickel (USA) LLC (Talon) submitted a proposed plan to continue exploring for metallic mineral deposits in Aitkin County. Exploration will occur on leased state mineral rights in an area north of Tamarack, Minnesota. Kennecott Exploration Company (Kennecott) and Talon have explored in this area since the early 2000s.

Talon’s exploration plan proposes drilling exploratory borings using the diamond core method at up to 25 drill sites. Talon notes the possibility of multiple borings at each site. Talon plans to use existing access to drill sites. The company may need to construct new trails to reach some areas. Drilling activity, including sealing, will follow regulations set by the Department of Health.

Talon’s proposed plan includes downhole geophysical surveys in newly drilled borings and borings that are temporarily sealed. Talon’s proposal includes plans to use a drill rig to clear any blocked borings. The new exploration plan indicates that surveyors may conduct geophysical surveys on foot within the boundaries of the leased state mineral rights. When conducting ground-based geophysical surveys, surveyors may need to cut small amounts of brush to make room for the portable survey equipment, but surveyors will not cut lines or grids. Talon will place signs when conducting geophysical surveys.

Kennecott, which designated Talon as the operator for the proposed exploration activity, holds the state leases. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has approved the operating agreement between Kennecott and Talon.

Upon DNR approval, Talon has the right to explore state-owned lands consistent with the exploration plan, any stipulations, and applicable laws and rules.

Find a summary report and associated map of the proposed exploration related activities at the DNR’s exploration plan webpage.