PUC

We’ve been working on the rules for the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission’s chapters covering Certificate of Need and Siting/Routing of electric utility infrastructure, ranging from transmission to power plants.  WHEW!  It takes forever, and thus far it’s been over two and a half years, just for the “pre-Commission-sends-it-out-for-comments” rulemaking advisory group part.

Who cares about rules?  Well I do, as to many others who have been dealing with Certificate of Need and Routing/Siting issues over the years.  It’s important because so many things are wrong with the process, from awkward to just plain wrong/unfair, even in light of the enabling statutes for these rules (rules need to operate within some pretty restrictive statutory framing).

This is, again, still informal, and PUC is open to any and all comments, ones on point, that is, and so comment on specific language, and suggest specific language!  Here’s the latest (and I’ve filed them on the PUC site):

August 3 Draft 7849

August 3 2015 Draft 7850

To see the versions and comments thus far, go to the PUC’s SEARCH PAGE HERE, and search for PUC Docket 12-1246.

To file comments, go HERE and file.  If you’re not registered to file, go HERE and register and file!  It’s that easy, almost instantaneous!

 

snapshotprojectoverview

Yesterday, I received a missive about the Plains & Eastern Clean Line that was disconcerting to say the least.  After all the Comment periods have closed, both DEIS and Section 1222, the DOE now says that based on comments received, there have been changes, and we get this:

Route Variations and Modified Converter Station Siting Areas

Route Variations Project Overview
Route Variations by Regions
Route Variation Sheet Maps
Modified Arkansas Converter Station Alternative Siting Area
Modified Tennessee Converter Station Siting Area

Here’s an example that makes no sense to me — look at the site for the so-called Arkansas Converter Station — it’s surrounded.  Does DOE think it can ram through Wildlife Management Areas?

ArkansasConverterStation

Given all this new information, where’s the announcement of opportunity to review and file DEIS Comments on this?

Given the alterations of routes, are new landowners affected?  If so, where’s the announcement of opportunity to review the whole mess and file Section 1222 Comments?

Check out this great slap down of Ameren Transmission Company of Illinois by the Missouri Court of Appeals when Ameren challenged the lower court’s dismissal of their attempt to circumvent state regulation (thanks to Paul Henry for passing this on):

Ameren (ATXI) – Missouri Court of Appeals

As you know, Missouri is the state that had the wherewithall to declare that Grain Belt Express and its Clean Line was not a utility.  In this case, Ameren went in and said, with it seems quite a bit of arrogance, Missouri, don’t touch me, we don’t have to play with you, you don’t regulate me:

Ameren1WOW, whew, that sure didn’t work for Ameren.  Love it when that happens.

crowd_cheering_med

RCMP_McIntyre
They published my LTE in the Alaska Highway News:

UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEAVES DEEP IMPACTS

Your coverage of the RCMP shooting of James McIntyre has been thorough in this general dearth of information.

I’ve spent the last 20 years advocating against utility infrastructure in the U.S., and the killing of McIntyre by RCMP is horrifying.  

A big part of my schtick is to stand at the door (not inside where I’d be “interfering”) and enthusiastically greet everyone, hand them a flyer about how to participate, and direct them to the meeting.  Had I been at that open house, I’d be the one they found at the door.  Had they told me to leave, I’d have argued and resisted, as always, ramping up if they pushed.

In my experience, utilities have now and then requested police presence, and when I see it, I let the organizers know it’s offensive and off putting, chilling public participation.  People have a right to speak out against a project, and they have a right to be angry!  I talk to the officers too, find out if I can who wanted them there, and let them know it’s inhibiting and threatening to the public.  I figure they just add me to their list of people to watch.  But this atmosphere of blind fear is not acceptable.  Don’t Canadians have a right to free speech?  Civil disobedience is an appropriate response.  Civil disobedience is NOT a death sentence with law enforcement as judge, jury and executioner.

People are being steam-rolled by utility infrastructure projects such as dams, transmission lines, and pipelines, and no one wants to hear about it.  They want opposition to just go away.  People are losing their land, communities are deeply affected, and those affected are not compensated sufficiently to make it acceptable — and money is not the answer to everything!  

Is the Site C project worth the impacts?  Is generating electricity and profiting from it sufficient reason to inflict these impacts, including this death?  Maybe BC Hydro should think again.

—Carol A. Overland, Utility Regulatory Attorney, Minnesota

RCMP-McIntyre2

coalcreekdistant_smThat’s the Coal Creek plant, a photo I took on a tour.  If you’re an electric co-op member in Minnesota (elsewhere too?), they offer tours regularly, and it’s something you should do!  Check your co-op’s newsletter for info.

State Register Notice:

MPCA_StateRegister_Pages from 40_05

Just released FEDERAL Clean Power Plan:

Clean Power Plan Final Rule (PDF)(1560 pp, 3.3 MB, About PDF) – August 2015

Look at how the “adjusted” Minnesota’s baseline levels due to Sherco 3 being out for nearly 2 years:

The EPA examined units nationwide with 2012 outages to determine where an individual unit-level outage might yield a significant difference in state goal computation. When applying this test to all of the units informing the computation of the BSER, emission performance rates, and statewide goals, the EPA determined that the only unit with a 2012 outage that 1) decreased its output relative to preceding and subsequent years by 75 percent or more (signifying an outage), and 2) could potentially impact the state’s goal as it constituted more than 10 percent of the state’s generation was the Sherburne County Unit 3 in Minnesota.  The EPA therefore adjusted this state’s baseline coal steam generation upwards to reflect a more representative year for the state in which this 900 MW unit operates.

Clean Power Plan Final Rule (PDF p. 796 of 1560).

And from the state, which acknowledges imminent release of FEDERAL Clean Power Plan Final Rule , also released today, just in from the MPCA (direct quote):

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has issued a request for comments on possible rule amendments to bring Minnesota into compliance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Clean Power Plan. You can read the full request in the August 3, 2015, edition of the State Register, available at www.comm.media.state.mn.us/bookstore/mnbookstore.asp?page=register.

The amendments we are considering will help Minnesota meet standards established by the Clean Power Plan, which sets state-specific carbon dioxide emission targets and requires each state to submit a plan detailing its strategy for meeting the targets. As of State Register press time, we have not yet started drafting a plan because the EPA has not yet published the standards that Minnesota’s plan will need to meet, so the MPCA requests public input to help guide our considerations of methods for meeting the EPA’s targets, as well as any other objectives that the state’s plan might include.

Stakeholder meeting agendas, notes, and other related documents are posted on the website for this rulemaking at www.pca.state.mn.us/w9y3awr.

To access information about a particular Minnesota rulemaking, visit the Public Rulemaking Docket.