Legalectric

Photo from news8000.com

And the good news is that it’s NOT Bakken BOOM! oil, only denatured alcohol and some empty car cars.  The evacuation has been lifted and people are returning.  The other good news is that this means they won’t be shipping on the Wisconsin side of the Mississippi anytime soon, with the associated bad news that then they’ll be shipping through Red Wing more often.

Some good photos here:

http://www.fox9.com/news/45812089-story

NOTE: There’s a Minneapolis CARS message below regarding the November 10th Mpls. City Council meeting.

From News8000:

Emergency crews on scene of 32-car train derailment north of Alma

From KSTP 5:

Train Derails in Wisconsin, Prompting Voluntary Evacuation

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Here’s the Minneapolis CARS (Citizens Acting for Rail Safety) message:

Nov 10th -- Attention Minneapolis residents: Support 
a Strong Rail Safety Resolution!

Hello CARS network, as we reported last month, the 
City of Minneapolis is preparing a rail safety 
resolution that will come before the Transportation 
and Public Works committee on November 10th. We are 
encouraged from conversations with City Council 
members that the resolution will be a great first 
step forward and that the resolution is likely to 
pass the committee and the City Council. There is 
also understanding that this will be a living 
document that will need updating as more information 
is available. It is important that the City Council 
hear from us to know that the community is supportive 
of this important work. 

There are two ways you can do this:

1) Mark your calendars to attend the Minneapolis City 
Council Transportation & Public Works Committee meeting 
next Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 9:30 am in the Council 
Chamber, Room 317 of City Hall. If you are able to 
attend, please let us know by replying to this email. 
Comments will not be allowed, but your presence will be 
important. Please also plan to stay for a brief press 
conference that is being organized for approximately 
11:30 am. As the media reports this important success, 
it is important that we have as many people in attendance 
as possible showing community support.

2) Contact your Minneapolis City Council member to 
thank them for supporting a strong rail safety 
resolution. Call or Email them with some version of 
the following message, sharing your own personal 
story of living near the rails if you are willing.

I am concerned about the risks that freight trains 
carrying crude oil, ethanol and other hazardous 
materials pose to my neighborhood. I thank the City 
for its leadership in supporting a strong Rail Safety 
Resolution that will protect Minneapolis.

MINNEAPOLIS CITY COUNCIL CONTACT INFORMATION
Ward 1 - kevin.reich@minneapolismn.gov - (612)673-2201
Ward 2 - cam.gordon@minneapolismn.gov - (612)673-2202
Ward 3 - jacob.frey@minneapolismn.gov - (612)673-2203
Ward 4 - barbara.johnson@minneapolismn.gov - (612)673-2204
Ward 5 - blong.yang@minneapolismn.gov - (612)673-2205
Ward 6 - abdi.warsame@minneapolismn.gov - (612)673-2206
Ward 7 - lisa.goodman@minneapolismn.gov - (612)673-2207
Ward 8 - elizabeth.glidden@minneapolismn.gov - (612)673-2208
Ward 9 - alondra.cano@minneapolismn.gov - (612)673-2209
Ward 10 - lisa.bender@minneapolismn.gov - (612)673-2210
Ward 11 - john.quincy@minneapolismn.gov - (612)673-2211
Ward 12 - andrew.johnson@minneapolismn.gov - (612)673-2212
Ward 13 - linea.palmisano@minneapolismn.gov - (612)673-2213

Cars Contact Info:

Cathy Velasquez Eberhart
Citizens Acting for Rail Safety - Twin Cities
saferailstwincities@gmail.com
651-587-5356

on Facebook at: facebook.com/saferailstwincities

Xcel’s cost of electricity is down.  Yet they want more money from us, 9.8% over the next 3 years, with the average residential customer’s 675 kW/hr bill to go up $11 a month.  WHAT?

Meanwhile, last year at the legislature, the biggest of the big customers got a special rate category and special lower rates.  WHAT?

The above graph is from Chuck Burdick’s testimony — after dealing with him in the Goodhue Wind case, I couldn’t resist checking out his testimony (Application, 2A2 – MYRP).

So if Xcel Energy was authorized a certain ROE, and only earned a much lesser ROE, does that mean we should make up the difference?  Also from Burdick’s testimony:

Were this “free market” the response would be that the company should contract, that there are too many cooks in that kitchen, that the capital expenses not for our use, such as this big transmission build-out, should not occur, and we should not have to pay for them.

Let’s take a look at the drivers, where they’re running short — do we want to pay for this?  From the Application 1:

The initial filing in this new rate case is there for the reading, dig in, I’m sure there’s something you’ll enjoy.

Just go HERE TO PUC’S SEARCH DOCKETS PAGE and search for PUC docket 15-826, opened today.

In the STrib today:

Xcel seeks 9.8 percent rate hike in Minnesota over three years

WHAT!?!?!  Yes… Really… after the delightful decision from the Appellate Court requiring an Environmental Impact Statement, telling the Public Utilities Commission that an EIS must be completed before a Certificate of Need can be issue, the Applicants dropped  Petition.  Read this whale-eye inducing filing from North Dakota Pipeline Company, LLC (a/k/a Enbridge) hot off the press:

North Dakota Pipeline Company _ Petition for Rejoinder and Comment Period 20159-114150-03

Here’s the short version:

Once more with feeling, here’s the Appellate Court’s decision:

OPa150016-091415

And the bottom line:

So from this order of the Appellate Court “to complete an EIS” the Applicant now asks for the “need” docket and “routing” docket to be brought back together and to use the “Comparative Environmental Analysis” that the Appellate Court says isn’t sufficient.  Yes, that what they’re saying:

What planet is North Dakota Pipeline Company living on?  Earth to Mars!!!!!  A “CEA” is not sufficient.  MEPA requires an EIS.  The court told the Public Utilities Commission to complete an EIS.  The Court did NOT say to go ahead with a “CEA.”

Not too long ago, Lisa Agrimonti sent around notice that she had moved over to Fredrickson & Byron.  $50 says that she’ll be filing Notice of Appearance for this docket!

It’s fall, the sun is rising on the other side of the house and bluff now, and I’m not ready!  Getting out to enjoy fall as much as possible, and then Little Sadie and I are heading to St. Louis soon for BaronFest III (didn’t have one last year).  Maybe down to Arkansas to catch fall later!  This is the first BaronFest where I don’t have a German Shepherd, and I’m not sure how Little Sadie will fare.

It’s hard to feel motivated to work with all this transmission going up here in Minnesota.  Earlier in the summer, we went down through Wabasha, and south of Wabasha where CapX Hampton – La Crosse cuts across the Mississippi River to Alma, through La Crosse and checked out the Briggs Road substation, host to CapX and Badger Coulee transmission, to Cassville and Dubuque and back up further west, a tour of electric infrastructure.

Don’t they have enough?  If they’re shutting down this coal plant, why would they need transmission?  How about using that capacity… oh, right, they get that 12.38% or thereabouts for building transmission, that’s their primary revenue source these days!

Time for a break…

Until then, I can vicariously enjoy my SiL’s trek along El Camino, and transmission lines too, in Spain.  Go, Jeanne, go!!!

Many thanks to the “little birdie” who brought this decades old report to my attention:

Rulemaking – Legislative Auditor-93-04-1

Yes, this is a report from the Minnesota Legislative Auditor from 1993, and if you read it, you’ll see little has changed is so many years…  The issues raised are issues we’ve been raising in the Public Utilities Commission rulemaking for Minn. R. Ch. 7849 and 7850 (Certificate of Need and Siting/Routing).  AAAAAAAAAAAACK!

For example, from the Summary:

• Encouraging agencies to negotiate rules before formally proposing them has made the formal public notice-and-comment process mandated by the APA less meaningful; and

• Since there are no requirements or guidelines governing the negotiation process, those people selected to help an agency draft rules have an unfair advantage over those who are not asked to participate.

One unintended consequence of negotiated rulemaking is that the public participation process mandated by the APA has become less important because the content of rules is largely decided during the negotiation phase. As a result, by the time a rule is formally published in the State Register with a request for public comments, an informal agreement between an agency and parties to the negotiation may already have been reached. Those groups and individuals not consulted often are left out. Nearly 70 percent of the affected parties who responded to our survey said they hear about rules too late for their input to make a difference. People who live outside the Twin Cities area were much more likely to feel unable to influence the rulemaking process and to express dissatisfaction with agency rulemaking performance generally.

For example, in the PUC Rulemaking for 7849 and 7850 (PUC Docket 12-1246), it’s been an over two-year-long process, and few are showing up anymore.  We weigh in, some things are taken into account in the drafts, and then that disappears from the next draft.  How can it feel like anything but a colossal waste of time?  Yet if we weren’t there, the utilities would get everything they want.  And as with the utility Certificate of Need and Siting/Routing processes, rulemaking has the same notice and public participation problems.  It’s all the same, deja vu all over again.

… and also from the report …

Furthermore, the rule negotiation process is not part of the official rulemaking record nor subject to statutory controls or legal review that would guarantee equal access. Therefore, it can easily be dominated by those groups and organizations with more resources. In the absence of formal guidelines or standards, agency practices vary, and some agencies are better than others at obtaining broad-based input.

We also conclude that:

• The formal public notice mechanisms may be inadequate to ensure timely notice and meaningful participation in rulemaking; and

• The prohibition of “substantial changes” after rules are proposed is often misunderstood by agency staff and may inhibit them from incorporating public comments made through official mechanisms.

Does this sound familiar?

Once more with feeling:  … the rule negotiation process is not part of the official rulemaking record nor subject to statutory controls or legal review that would guarantee equal access. Therefore, it can easily be dominated by those groups and organizations with more resources.

So what is the bottom line of this report?

Therefore, we recommend that:

The Legislature should consider amending the Administrative Procedure Act to require that a “notice of regulatory action” be published in the State Register and mailed to all affected parties when an agency begins drafting a rule.

We also recommend that:

• The Legislature should consider amending the Administrative Procedure Act to require that agencies maintain a “rulemaking docket” that contains an up-to-date listing of the status of existing rules and impending rulemaking actions, to be submitted annually to the Legislature.

The recommendations we make are designed to revitalize the formal rulemaking process, ensure more equitable access to agencies at a time when comments can reasonably be considered, and strengthen public accountability over agency rules. We think that replacing the current “notice to solicit outside opinion,” which is published for 62 percent of all rules, with a mandatory “notice of regulatory action” will not represent an undue burden on agencies. The current notice is not widely distributed and does not contain enough information to enable interested parties to respond. Therefore, we recommend that the new notice should contain more information about the rule and the process to be used in drafting it, and that it should receive wider distribution than the current notice. A mandatory rulemaking docket, to be submitted to the Legislature and made available to the public upon request, should help the Legislature monitor rulemaking and provide better oversight.

Also, we recommend the following additional changes to the Administrative Procedure Act:

• Rules not adopted within 18 months of their authorizing legislation should require reauthorization, which would replace the current requirement that new rules be published within 180 days;

• A single definition of “substantial change” should be incorporated into the APA;

• “Regulatory analyses” should be done on rules if requested by the Governor, the Legislative Commission to Review Administrative Rules, a political subdivision, another state agency, or 300 persons; and the current special rule justification requirements relating to agricultural land, small business, and fiscal impacts on local government should be eliminated;

• Agency efforts to notify all people potentially affected by a rule should be made part of the official rulemaking record and subject to external examination during the rules review process;

• Individuals requesting a public hearing should provide their address and phone number;

• Everyone who has requested a hearing should be notified when agencies negotiate to secure withdrawal of hearing requests, and agreements made in negotiations should be made a matter of public record and included in the official rulemaking record;

• Exempt rules should be reviewed for form, statutory authority, need and reasonableness, and consistency with legislative intent; and

• All rules should be reviewed by the Office of Administrative Hearings, thereby eliminating the Attorney General’s role in rules review.

… and …

In addition to changing the APA and other statutes that govern agency rulemaking, we recommend that:

• State agencies involved in rulemaking should make more efforts to broaden public participation in rulemaking.

For example, they should make a greater effort to educate the public about how to receive direct information about rulemaking actions and make greater use of agency-held public hearings or widely publicized public meetings early in the rulemaking process. They should also include circulation of rule drafts and “statements of need and reasonableness” earlier and more widely among all parties affected by rules. Finally, agencies should terminate the negotiation process when it fails to make progress toward resolving issues and either proceed more quickly to an official public hearing, employ the services of a professional negotiator or mediator, or return to the Legislature for guidance.

Adopting these recommendations should shorten the informal process, broaden public input in the early stages of rulemaking, and make rules more responsive to the Legislature.