Legalectric

Here it is, Michigan v. EPA:

Michigan v. EPA   U.S. Supreme Court File No. 14-46

Given this decision, it’s going to be hard for any agency to argue that it shouldn’t do a solid cost benefit analysis, and one that includes verification and analysis of benefits!  That’s a good thing given the outrageous benefits claims I’ve seen in transmission proceedings.  Check this part of the Order early on (I’m just going over it now):

In accordance with Executive Order, the Agency issued a “Regulatory Impact Analysis” alongside its regulation.This analysis estimated that the regulation would force power plants to bear costs of $9.6 billion per year. Id., at 9306. The Agency could not fully quantify the benefits of reducing power plants’ emissions of hazardous air pollutants; to the extent it could, it estimated that these benefits were worth $4 to $6 million per year. Ibid. The costs to power plants were thus between 1,600 and 2,400 times as great as the quantifiable benefits from reduced emissions of hazardous air pollutants. The Agency continued that its regulations would have ancillary benefits—including cutting power plants’ emissions of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide, substances that are not covered by the hazardous-air-pollutants program. Although the Agency’s appropriate-and-necessary finding did not rest on these ancillary effects, id., at 9320, the regulatory impact analysis took them into account, increasing the Agency’s estimate of the quantifiable benefits of its regulation to $37 to $90 billion per year, id., at 9306. EPA concedes that the regulatory impact analysis “played no role” in its appropriate-and-necessary finding. Brief for Federal Respondents 14.

Michigan v. EPA, p. 4.  The regulatory impact analysis included the information, it was in the record, but EPA says that it “played no role” in that decision.  So can’t they just reissue it, state they took that into account and used it as a basis for its decision and everyone can go home?  AAAARGH!

And here’s a highlight where I actually agree (!) with a sentence in Thomas’ Concurrence:

Statutory ambiguity thus becomes an implicit delegation of rule-making authority, and that authority is used not to find the best meaning of the text, but to formulate legally binding rules to fill in gaps based on policy judgments made by the agency rather than Congress.

Dissents, p. 3 (pdf p. 20 of 47).

Ma’am, come down off the pole!

Come down off the pole! Ma’am, Ma’am, come down off the pole!

Time for it to come down. Even Walmart gets that…

Secret Aerial FBI Program Uncovered by 23 Year Old Journalist

Sam Renegade – MORE HERE

Follow up in the STrib about the surveillance airplanes circling around Minneapolis:

Mysterious low-flying plane over Twin Cities raises questions of surveillance

The plane’s flight path, recorded by the website flightradar24.com, would eventually show that it circled downtown Minneapolis, the Mall of America and Southdale Center at low altitude for hours starting at 10:30 p.m., slipping off radar just after 3 a.m.

“I thought, ‘Holy crap,’ ” said Zimmerman.

That’s one way to put it.

And the AP Exclusive in the STrib today:

FBI behind mysterious surveillance aircraft over US, including Twin Cities

There’s the Garbage Queen Victoria Reinhardt, Ramsey County Commissioner, promoting the Joint Powers of Ramsey and Washington County’s dream of buying a RDF processing facility in Newport, one that’s now a private entity that they’re contracted with to handle their garbage!  Why buy it?  Why lock the counties into decades of grinding up garbage?  They couldn’t answer that.

And it’s a bit of a conflict, as after they grind it up and turn garbage into RDF, they send it down here to burn it.  Thanks Ramsey & Washington Counties.  Let’s be clear here — you need to deal with YOUR garbage problem, and not send it to us, and not put it in our lungs.

They talked some about “what ifs,” like dreams/nightmares of anaerobic digestion and garbage gasification, but that is not dealing with their problem.  It’s an issue of REDUCTION, REUSE, RECYCLING.  How difficult is that?

More Value Less Trash_Open Houses Powerpoint

Here’s their site and read between the lines for the plan:

More Value Less Trash

Last night’s meeting was at Century College, which was 916 Area Vo-Tech when I went there and emerged in 1983 with a Truck Driver Certificate and the first of a few jobs of over the road driving that got me through a BA at Metro State!  It’s changed a lot, big expansion, and the trucks are no longer there up against 694.

The next “Talkin’ Trash” garbage open houses will be 6:30 to 7:30 p.m.:

• Tuesday, April 21, in the Marsden Room of the Ramsey County Department of Public Works building, 1425 Paul Kirkwold Drive in Arden Hills.
• Thursday, April 23, in lower level conference room 14 at the Washington County Government Center, 14949 62nd St.t N., Stillwater.
• Monday, April 27, in at the Newport City Hall, 596 Seventh Ave., Newport.
• Tuesday, April 28, in Auditorium A of the Wilder Foundation, 451 Lexington Parkway N. in St. Paul.

Here are the latest reports that they’ve generated…  they lose it by only looking at burning or landfilling — there’s a much wider range of options.  And the Foth Report (first up) should make you froth:

Foth Analysis of Mixed Waste Processing
This study examines the potential of adding Mixed Waste Processing Technology at Newport and the costs associated with adding the technology.
Report

Ownership Analysis
This analysis includes looking at the current Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) processing facility and also looking at other technologies that may be used to process MSW.
Analysis

Governance Report
This policy study investigates the governance options available to the counties, describes the process to implement and consequences associated with each.
Report

Waste Delivery Assurance Analysis and Options
This document provides an overview of options for assuring delivery of mixed municipal solid waste, and potentially other solid wastes, to the Newport Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) Facility or another resource recovery facility involving Ramsey and Washington Counties.
Report

Technology Comparative Analysis
This report compares the three options analyzed in the Preliminary Resource Recovery Feasibility Report to the current RDF System and to landfilling.
Report

Preliminary Resource Recovery Feasibility Report
This report addresses the technologies selected for continued evaluation by the Ramsey/Washington Counties Resource Recovery Project as part of the future of waste processing decision process.
Report

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.