Legalectric

Quick comments — this project is bizarre, a private project proposed on request of DOE (with applicant ringleader a former DOE employee) that has no demonstrable need.  ???

Overland Comment 4-20-2015

Here’s the link for the DEIS, from their site:

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Plains & Eastern Clean Line Transmission Project (DOE/EIS–0486; Draft EIS) is now available

I do hope the DOE will explain how they intend to review this under Section 1222… it’s all too bizarre for words!

So I heard last Friday at the House Jobs and Energy Committee… that’s something new, to hear that so directly and publicly.  We’d put a serious effort into deleting the offensive “special legislation” for Geronimo about the Black Oak and Getty wind projects that would unilaterally extend the term of the wind lease contracts from seven to eight years:

That was Friday, but checking the status, the 1st engrossment isn’t out yet, so who knows…

And on top of that, “upon information and belief,” or “a little birdie told me” basis, it’s possible that both the House and Senate version of this will be withdrawn.  I’ve since received confirmation from two sources that yes, that is Geronimo’s request, but that it probably won’t happen until it hits the floor of the Senate. That would be good, but it’s not over yet… and this sure shouldn’t go forward and get to Conference Committee where anything can and does often happen.

SO, on that note, it’s time for phone calls and emails again!

For the Senate, contact Senator John Marty, the Senate Energy Chair, and the local Senator, Tory Westrom, and your own Senator if different.  Let them know that Section 40 of the Energy Omnibus Bill, page 34, lines 34.8 – 17, should be deleted… the special legislation extending wind contracts for Black Oak and Getty wind (or any others!) must be deleted from the Senate Energy bill.

John Marty (66, DFL) Energy Committee Chair
651-296-5645
E-mail: UseMail Form

John A. Hoffman (36, DFL) Energy Committee Vice Chair
651-296-4154
E-mail:
sen.john.hoffman@senate.mn

David J. Osmek (33, R) Energy Committee Ranking Minority Member
651-296-1282
E-mail:
sen.david.osmek@senate.mn

Torrey N. Westrom (12, R)
651-296-3826
sen.torrey.westrom@senate.mn

Other Senators’ contact information!

Also contact House Committee members with a THANK YOU and a gentle reminder to make sure it’s removed from the House version:

rep.pat.garofalo@house.mn, rep.dave.baker@house.mn, rep.karen.clark@house.mn, rep.dan.fabian@house.mn, rep.bob.gunther@house.mn, rep.melissa.hortman@house.mn, rep.jason.isaacson@house.mn, rep.sheldon.johnson@house.mn, rep.bob.loonan@house.mn, rep.jason.metsa@house.mn, rep.jim.newberger@house.mn, rep.marion.oneill@house.mn, rep.peggy.scott@house.mn, rep.erik.simonson@house.mn, rep.dennis.smith@house.mn, rep.chris.swedzinski@house.mn, rep.bob.vogel@house.mn, rep.jean.wagenius@house.mn, rep.jim.knoblach@house.mn, rep.jason.metsa@house.mn, rep.dave.baker@house.mn, rep.marion.oneill@house.mn

By the way, after the House Energy Omnibus hearing on Friday, I learned Rep. Garofalo’s price:

$1.49!  OK…

WHAT?!?  What is Pat Garofalo up to?  Just look what’s appeared in the House Energy Omnibus Bill:

How did that happen?

So not only did Sen. Weber add it to the Senate Energy Omnibus Bill, but now it’s mysteriously appeared in the House Omnibus Bill.  Who “authored” this?  Well, we know it’s Geronimo, but what Rep. put their name on it?  Who is responsible?

Here’s what Sen. Weber said when he introduced the A-12 amendment to the bill in the Senate:

I have the A-12 Amendment, members…[staff passing out Amendment]… Previous legislation has required that there be a seven year limit as far as the leasing of wind rights, and this was of course to protect property owners from signing up for wind rights by someone who was just speculating and who may not have those wind rights ever available for a project.  There is a project up in Senator Westrom’s district, it is the former Black Oak Getty Wind Farm Project that has now been taken over by Geronimo.  And the project is in its early stages of construction, however it will not be completed by the time that the seven year period expires.  The purpose of this amendment is thereby to extend that seven year period to, by one year, to an eight year period.  It is very specific, the amendment is very specific as to the description of the project, and it is this project.  Farmers Union has been contacted, who pushed for the original seven year limit, and they are certainly OK with this, and I believe that parties have been in contact with Sen. Marty as it relates to it.  And if there are any questions as it relates to the project, Ms. Engelking is still available to address those.

Can you believe it?  It’s not even Sen. Weber’s district, and he introduced this without checking with Sen. Westrom?  EH?  Check it out on the Senate video of that meeting, Weber introduces it at about 3:29:09.  WATCH IT HERE!

Tomorrow is the House Energy Committee meeting and the Energy Omnibus Bill is on the agenda, starting at high noon, and 2p is the deadline for amendments, and Xcel’s Rick Evans has promised he’s got a thing or two up his sleeve, apparently confirming that Xcel is running the Committee.

Now is the time to let the Committee know what you think about legislative interference with the wind easement contracts between Geronimo and landowners in the Black Oak and Getty Wind Projects, BEFORE THE COMMITTEE MEETS.

• Delete lines 134.1 – 134.11 of HF 843 — the House Energy Omnibus Bill.
• Don’t put Geronimo’s corporate interests above those Black Oak and Getty Wind Project landowners who have contracts.
• Wind contract language says it is a seven (7) year contract, not 8!
• This is special legislation, legislation for Geronimo that is favoring a particular, specific, corporate interest — that’s prohibited by Minnesota law.
• This legislation is against the interests of the landowners who signed the original contracts, for a project which has not been built, and contracts which are due to expire soon.
• Legislature should not interfere and try to change a contract between Geronimo and landowners.  If Geronimo wants something different, they can negotiate in good faith with the landowners.
• Landowners affected by this legislation were NOT notified before this bill’s introduction.
• Geronimo might say that this legislation won’t affect the landowners, but if it doesn’t have an impact, why are they pushing for this legislation for this specific project?

Here’s the list for emails to delete lines 134.1 to 134.11 of the House Energy Omnibus Bill, let them know in technicolor what you think:

rep.pat.garofalo@house.mn, rep.dave.baker@house.mn, rep.karen.clark@house.mn, rep.dan.fabian@house.mn, rep.bob.gunther@house.mn, rep.melissa.hortman@house.mn, rep.jason.isaacson@house.mn, rep.sheldon.johnson@house.mn, rep.bob.loonan@house.mn, rep.jason.metsa@house.mn, rep.jim.newberger@house.mn, rep.marion.oneill@house.mn, rep.peggy.scott@house.mn, rep.erik.simonson@house.mn, rep.dennis.smith@house.mn, rep.chris.swedzinski@house.mn, rep.bob.vogel@house.mn, rep.jean.wagenius@house.mn, rep.jim.knoblach@house.mn, rep.jason.metsa@house.mn, rep.dave.baker@house.mn, rep.marion.oneill@house.mn

Thanks for weighing in, and tune in to the Committee tomorrow.

You can watch it HERE — the MISO LMP Coutour Map live!  Earlier today the whole thing was yellow and orange, yet PJM’s LMP Contour Map was still blue as it usually is… that DC xmsn-related outage was barely a blip!

More on the special legislation for Black Oak and Getty Wind Projects!

Remember that hard-to-believe Senate Energy Committee meeting a couple weeks ago?

Bill to extend Getty/Black Oak wind contracts?

It’s an amendment to the Senate Ominous Energy bill to extend the term of wind rights contracts.  What they’ve decided can’t be done in the contracts (DOH — is there a reason they’re having trouble?), they’ve decided to do unilaterally, legislatively, in special legislation incorporated into the Senate Energy Ominous Bill, S.F. 1431 (1st Engrossment):

Here’s the audio of the Committee meeting:

   (04:31:52) Part 2

It’s been getting some attention, and not the kind of attention they want… GOOD!

Contract extension could leave landowners flapping in the breeze

And, oh, there she goes again:

“This is a really poor way to do policy,” said Carol Overland, an attorney who has represented residents opposed to Black Oak. “… It’s crafted in such a way that they don’t name it. Therefore, they would say it’s not special legislation. But it is designed only for this project.”

I just happened to be at that hearing, objecting to the e21 Initiative language in S.F. 1735 which was to have been incorporated into the Energy Ominous Bill… and heard this and other amendments that were shocking!  Had I not been there, who would have noticed this special legislation?  Thing is, “special legislation” happens in Minnesota all the time, particularly on energy issues, just look at all the utility personal property tax exemptions, and at all the bills framed around Xcel Energy, f/k/a Northern States Power.  Special legislation shouldn’t be happening, but nobody seems to care.  They pretend that because it isn’t named in the bill, it’s not “special legislation.”  We know better.  And Sen. Weber, in introducing this A-12 amendment for Black Oak Getty Wind, specifically said that it was for the “Black Oak Getty Wind Project” which is what got my attention.  And the article quotes some of what he said (why not the part using the words “Black Oak Getty Wind Project”).

“The project is in its early stages of construction. However, it will not be completed by the time the seven-year period expires,” Weber said in the hearing. “The purpose of this amendment is to thereby extend that seven-year period by one year to an eight-year period. The amendment is very specific as to the description of the project and it is this project.”

Yes, this is special legislation, and it’s not OK.