Legalectric

John Blair is a cohort in the no-coal world, and he’s been featured in a BIG write up recently — from the looks of this article, perception of him is expanding beyond the “Royal Pain In The Ass” mode to merit a feature in the… get this… the BUSINESS magazine in Evansville, Indiana.  But make no mistake about it, John Blair IS a Royal Pain In The Ass, in the best possible sense of the word, he revels in it and does it very well.  He’s been a fixture in environmental issues long enough that they’re learning it helps to pay attention.  He operates his Valley Watch a lot like Alan and Green Delaware, the one person responsible for focusing direction and keeping it all together, and it’s not easy and for sure the work is NEVER done.

The article ends with a classic Blairism:

Blair says, “If I have something to add to the conversation, I’ll add it” — in a loud voice.

Here it is in its entirety, in case the link disappears:

A Watchful Eye

The controversial life of Pulitzer Prize-winning photographer and environmental activist John Blair

by Kristen K. Tucker

John Blair worries about the effects of the Rockport Power Plant and other power plants on the health of Tri-State residents.

Aloft over Henderson County in a small Cessna, John Blair points out the windows in each direction and out to the horizon, identifying the power plants visible from 3,000 feet. He locates nearly a dozen plants, including the Rockport Power Plant with one of the tallest stacks in the world (1,038 feet) and Gibson Station, operated by Duke Energy, 2008’s third largest power plant in the United States for generating capacity, according to Electric Light & Power magazine.

Blair is on assignment to produce aerial photographs of a large construction project of an Evansville-based firm and has hired a pilot from Don Davis Aviation out of Henderson, Ky., to fly him up the Ohio River. The bird’s eye views he creates pay the bills and stoke his passion: the health of the citizens of the Ohio Valley. For around three decades, Blair and the organization he co-founded, Valley Watch, have been the most vocal and active area advocates for clean air and water.

“I, personally, and Valley Watch have had tremendous victories,” Blair says, claiming a record of 33 wins and four losses against projects and endeavors that his organization claims would cause serious harm to the public health of the Ohio Valley.
Read the rest of this entry »

It’s out,  and although the court rejected the arguments of Excelsior Energy saying they didn’t get enough out of the PUC, and rejected the arguments of Minnesota Power and Xcel Energy, the bottom line is that the Public Utilities Commission won, their Order stands, and so in a small way, Excelsior Energy has “won.”

There were three issues before the court:

I. Did the commission err in determining that the Mesaba project is an IEP under Minn. Stat. § 216B.1694, subd. 1?

II. Does Minn. Stat. § 216B.1694, subd. 2(a)(7), require the commission to undertake its traditional public-interest evaluation?

III. Was the commission’s application of the IEP statute to Excelsior’s PPA arbitrary and capricious or unsupported by substantial evidence?

Bottom line?

We defer to the commission’s expertise as to the definition of the technical term ―traditional technologies.‖ The commission’s decision that the Mesaba project is an IEP is supported by substantial evidence.
The commission has the statutory authority to consider the public interest in evaluating the terms and conditions of an IEP’s PPA. Its decisions in this regard are supported by substantial record evidence and are not arbitrary and capricious. Accordingly, the commission did not err in concluding that Excelsior’s proposed power-purchase agreement with Xcel is not in the public interest under Minn. Stat. § 216B.1694, subd. 2(a)(7).

Here’s the full decision, issued today at 10:00 a.m.

May 18, 2010 Excelsior Energy-Mesaba Project Appellate Decision

Word is out – tomorrow we’ll know whether the Appellate Court thinks that Excelsior Energy qualifies as an Innovative Energy Project under Minnesota statutes.  Stay tuned…

Tomorrow there are FOUR AWA Goodhue Wind dockets at the PUC, a siting docket where a Draft Permit is proposed, a Certificate of Need docket, and two Power Purchase Agreement dockets.

MOES Reply Comments – Siting Docket 08-1233

Staff Briefing Papers – PPA Dockets 09-1349 and 09-1350

Staff Briefing Papers – Certificate of Need 09-1186

So in response to that:

Goodhue Wind Truth – Siting Docket Comment 08-1233

Goodhue Wind Truth Comment – CoN & PPA 09-1186, 09-1349, 09-1350

To look up the dockets, go to www.puc.state.mn.us and then “Search eDockets” and then search for the docket numbers, as above.

And check out the Goodhue Wind Truth site.

What’s the big deal?  Well, they want to site this project when the maps provided in the application are way way off, as in claiming land rights where they have none, “forgetting” to put homes on the map, that sort of thing.  No environmental review has been done and it’s a BIG project, the “Environmental Report” won’t be done until June — so why is this before the PUC now? And they claim it’s a C-BED project which has some preference in the scheme of Power Purchase Agreements and fulfilling the renewable energy mandate when it’s not exactly local ownership — remember those T. Boone Pickens articles last week? Pickens comes to Goodhue?

Pickens wind turbines come to Goodhue

Goodhue Wind is in the news, and the timing is perfect foreshadowing for next week’s PUC meeting.

In yesterday’s MinnPost:

T. Boone Pickens Tilting at Minnesota Windmills?

In today’s STrib:

Pickens wind turbines coming to Goodhue

In going through the THREE FOOT pile of mail waiting here when I got back, I’ve been reading the Dept. of Commerce Information Requests to Goodhue Wind, and I am pleasantly shocked, they are ON this.  What is “this?”  The basic financing and C-BED claims of this project — it’s been smoke and mirrors from day one, and Commerce is paying attention, digging for more information, and it’s impressive.  MUST GIVE CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE, particularly to Commerce!!!

MOES Reply Comments

Staff Briefing Papers

THESE FILINGS ARE MUST READS!

Just in — here are the PUBLIC AWA/Goodhue’s responses to Commerce Information Requests.  All of these below are the PUBLIC versions — I don’t see much to gain by reviewing the specifics because that’s pretty restrictive.

First, Dockets 09-1349l 09-1350 and 09-1186 (PPA & Certificate of Need):

IR 1-4

IR 5

IR 5a

IR 5 Supplemental

IR 6

IR 7

IR 8 & 10

IR 9

IR 11

IR 12-13-14

Next, Docket 08-1233 (the siting docket)

IR 1

IR 2-3