ALJ Sheehy Files AWA Goodhue Wind Recommendation
April 30th, 2011
Whew, leave town and look what happens…
What sticks in my craw is this — if the law were unambiguous we would not be here today in this contested case:
And it’s that paragraph 43 and 44 that is particularly obtuse, because from here it looks as though that MOES Affidavit filed, to which GWT objected and about which GWT filed Subpoena Request, which were DENIED:
Goodhue Wind Truth – Subpoena Requests for Bjorklund and Bull
ALJ Sheehy’s Letter to Overland – Denial of Subpoena Requests
Were it unambiguous, we wouldn’t be in this contested case, and she wouldn’t be going through this elaborate dance to get to “it’s unambiguous.”
If it walks like an ambiguous, if talks like an ambiguous, it’s ambiguous…
Oh, and here’s another bizarre part, claiming that there are state standards in existence for 12 years:
Uh-huh… right…
AWA Goodhue Wind hearing is webcast
March 16th, 2011
GO HERE and click on “Watch Webcast”
Today will be better than yesterday, for me at least.
And check out Goodhue Wind Truth’s site for info on this project.
Here’s AWA Goodhue’s latest
March 13th, 2011
Notice of Motion and Motion – Limit Public Participation and Exclude Intervenor Exhibits
HA! Over my dead polar bear! This “public participation” piece is one of “my” issues, so much so that I proposed some changes in my Rulemaking Petition to OAH:
To see the full docket, go to www.puc.state.mn.us, click on “Search eDockets” and search for 08-1233.
CATCH THE WEBCAST TUESDAY, WEDNESDAY & THURSDAY:
GO HERE and click the blue “Watch Webcast” button!
And here are their Information Request responses — can’t email these around, too big, so I’ll have to post them!
Enjoy!
AWA Responses to GWT Info Requests – No. 2-12 Part I
AWA Responses to GWT Info Requests No. 2-12 Part 2a
AWA Responses to GWT Info Requests Nos 2-12 Part 2b
AWA Responses to GWT Info Requests Nos 13-35
AWA Responses to GWT Info Requests Nos 36-45
AWA Response to Belle Creek Info Request 2
AWA Response to Belle Creek Info Request 3
AWA Response to Goodhue County Info Request No 3
AWA Resposne to CSS Info Request 1
AWA Response to CSS Info Request No 2
The “peaceful atom” strikes Japan
March 12th, 2011
One suggestion of the fallout path from Beyond Nuclear and Australian Radiation Service:
BOOM! Here we go… explosion at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. I write this as I’m sitting here in Red Wing, near two nuclear reactors (which are built not far from a fault in downtown Red Wing), and in Delaware with the THREE Salem and Hope Creek reactors just across the Delaware River, this is NOT what I want to see. Our reliance on nuclear power, Minnesota’s recent repeal of our nuclear moratorium, HOW STUPID CAN WE BE? That this would happen in Japan makes it even worse.
At issue are the following nuclear plants (from NIRS fact sheet, linked below):
Regarding the map above, Michael Mariotte of NIRS claims the numbers are way off, that as it is “there would be no increased radiation in the United States, however, these wind patterns and increased levels would come into play in the event that the core melts down.” (emphasis added) …but folks, that’s what the map says, M-E-L-T-D-O-W-N! Here’s NIRS’ info about this:
Last night in the STrib there was a quote from some nuclear muck-a-muck noting the high radiation levels in the plant and saying, “I sure wouldn’t want to be in there now.” Every nuclear worker, every CEO, officers, board of every company making money on that plant better be there dealing with it first hand, it’s their moral obligation.
Behind the Hydrogen Explosion at the Fukushima nuclear plant
Below, a transformer fire at the plant, prior to the explosion:
Overland files rulemaking petition with OAH
March 11th, 2011
Oh there she goes again…
Overland has filed a rulemaking petition with the Office of Administrative Hearings to hopefully address some of the inconsistencies of the rules, and interpretation of the rules, by Administrative Law Judges handling cases for the Public Utilities Commission.
Why? Because it is SO hard for people to participate in these dockets, and the rules and the way they’re interpreted make it even harder, and are not in conformance with the Power Plant Siting Act’s requirement to make public participation a priority.
Coming soon – ones covering the issues at PUC and MOES that occur over and over and over and over and over…
