Legalectric

I must admit, I get so tired of over and over and over and over harping on the basic bottom line, that we DON’T NEED MORE TRANSMISSION. But oh well… here we go again. Just filed Reply Comments on the Biennial Transmission Report:

Once more with feeling:

2021 Biennial Transmission Report

The deadline for Comments on the Lava Ridge wind project Draft Environmental Impact Statement has been extended to April 20, 2023. This is the wind project near, or nearly surrounding, the Minidoka National Historical Site, depending on the siting allowed.

Want to make a comment? Here’s how:

Here are links, starting with the Executive Summary and in order of appearance (there’s really no easy way to do this, and be prepared, just that first one with the narrative, it’s 578 pages long, and it’s the most important for the overview):

• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072054/250078236/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V1_ExecSum-Chapters.pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072051/250078233/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V2a_App1_POD_(1%20of%202).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072053/250078235/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V2b_App1_POD_(1%20of%202).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072055/250078237/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V3_Apps2-4_and_6-11.pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072050/250078232/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V4a_App5_(1%20of%2013).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072052/250078234/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V4b_App5_(2%20of%2013).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072056/250078238/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V4c_App5_(3%20of%2013).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072057/250078239/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V4d_App5_(4%20of%2013).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072061/250078243/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V4e_App5_(5%20of%2013).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072058/250078240/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V4f_App5_(6%20of%2013).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072059/250078241/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V4g_App5_(7%20of%2013).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072060/250078242/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V4h_App5_(8%20of%2013).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072062/250078244/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V4i_App5_(9%20of%2013).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072063/250078245/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V4j_App5_(10%20of%2013).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072064/250078246/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V4k_App5_(11%20of%2013).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072065/250078247/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V4l_App5_(12%20of%2013).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072101/250078283/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V4m_App5_(13%20of%2013).pdf

Go to the “Friends of Minidoka” for some guidelines and suggestions for comments:

Friends of Minidoka – Lava Ridge page

Big solar projects, utility scale projects taking up 2,500-3,500 acres of prime farmland, are an issue here in the midwest. There are legitimate problems, primarily runoff and erosion necessitating drainage mitigation and large ponds; and the problem of fencing around the project funneling wildlife onto the roads and highways.

Anyway, there’s been some attention paid to these issues, in one case by none other than my “friends” at Great Plains Institute, who were part of a federal study on stormwater management:

That’s good, an admission that there are problems with water draining off all these acres of impervious surface.

And this just came through today from the Environmental Quality Board:

The guidance has a link to a way to find “high value” resources:

Most high value resources described in this guidance document can be identified using Minnesota
Conservation Explorer (MCE).

Last night’s Red Wing City Council meeting (here on youtube, (Agenda Item 10C starts ~2:22) was a display of Council President Biese, Council members Kliewer and Farrar, and Mayor Wilson’s inability to “read the room” in putting forth a proposal to eliminate public comment for those participating virtually, people like MOI who often comment and show up virtually, and to make the “Statement of Intent” optional.

In the bEagle:

Virtual public comment discussion divided council

What these folks did was meet in secret, a meeting with no notice, not public, and developed Resolution 7852. They tried to claim that it was an Agenda Committee meeting, FALSE! It was NOT an Agenda meeting. Thankfully Kay Kuhlman, Council Admin, did correct that false statement for the record, noting it was separate from the properly noticed “Agenda Committee” meeting, it was NOT an “Agenda Committee” meeting. GOOD, except Kuhlman DID participate in that private, secret, meeting. And nevermind that the purpose of an “Agenda Meeting” is to set the agenda, not to go over Council Rules & Procedures and rewrite them!

Here’s the “Statement of Intent” that they want to make optional:

Apparently some have a problem with, and do not “agree to treat everyone with courtesy, dignity, and respect.” And that they “will listen to all sides of an issue, encourage participation…” yeah, obviously some have a problem with that…

Big thanks to, in order of appearance, Patricia Allende De Jung, Martha Harris, Alan Muller, Terri Cook, and MOI, who spoke against adoption of these changes.

CLICK HERE FOR LINK, Agenda Item 10C begins at ~2:23. Oh, great… the video is screwed up on the City’s page. Until then, this youtube.

Yes, Xcel Energy’s 2022 10-K is out, below, and as always, the numbers are interesting. That peak demand number above is an important number — note that 16 years later, we’ve not reached that 2006 peak of 9,859 MW:

Here are the peak demand numbers over the years:

And here it is — Xcel Energy’s 2022 10-K:

And don’t forget about Xcel’s “EXCESS CAPACITY” that they’re selling over all this transmission we’ve had to pay for, the massive billions and billions of transmission build-out, and yes the generation that’s generating all this excess capacity:

This is not rocket science, there’s a lot more generation than what’s needed. If “we’d” do a better job of peak shaving, and utilization of storage, there’d be even more.

What are “we” waiting for?