Legalectric

There are days when life in the U.S.A. really pisses me off, and yesterday was one of them.  We are, what, the ONLY developed country without available, accessible health care ready and waiting for its population?  My dogs get better health care than I do, and I will be damned if I will give some HEALTH INSURANCE company my hard-earned money when what I need is HEALTH CARE.  And I can’t call the vet for me.  Thanks to Dog for the Red Wing Care Clinic, which I give a chunk to each time I go.  Even without considering my parent’s veterans benefits (both were in WWII), they were covered well by Medicare and $102/month for Part B coverage.  I’m counting the days until I’m 65, and can get Medicare and reasonably priced supplemental care coverage.

When these idiots are talking about dismantling Medicare, THAT gets my blood pressure up, HOW DARE THEY.  “PRIVATIZE!”  Privatize Medicare, privatize Social Security — privatize my fat my ass…  The point is clear, they’re aiming to eliminate the surplus population with their draconian policies.  Over my dead body!  Oh, right, that’s exactly it…

Anyway, joys of self-employment and our damned “insurance” system… I had a cracked tooth, it started ages ago, and what little was left of it started screaming and I just couldn’t take it any longer:

OMD, what a relief… much better… much much better!!!

OAH Rulemaking Request for Comments

OAH Rulemaking Draft Changes

Well, folks, here we go, just got notice TODAY from Judge Lipman of the rulemaking at Office Administrative Hearings. Send Comments to:

Honorable Eric L. Lipman, Assistant Chief ALJ

P.O. Box 64620

St. Paul, Minnesota   55164-0620,

Electronic Mail: eric.lipman@state.mn.us

Here’s the “purpose” according to OAH (listed in numbers, not letters):

The purpose of these draft revisions to Parts 1400 and 1405 is to:

1. streamline hearing procedures across different types of administrative proceedings;
2. leverage the broader familiarity with contested case procedures to improve predictability in the hearing process for other types of cases;
3. better reflect contemporary hearing practice and the technological changes occurring since September of 2001 (when the last revision of OAH’s procedural rules was completed); and
   
4. improve predictability in the hearing process by more closely aligning OAH’s procedures with the General Rules of Practice of the District Courts.

I have a vested interest in this because I’d filed a Rulemaking Petition ages ago:

Overland – Petition for Rulemaking – OAH

That was March, 2011, IT TOOK A YEAR AND A HALF!

Here are a few things I hope you’ll look at — the parts cited with a page number are from the OAH Rulemaking Draft Changes:

• Draft Changes, p. 2, definitions of Participant and Person – narrowing definition of person:

As proposed, on p. 4:

20   Subp. 6a. Participant. “Participant” means a nonparty who:
21
22  A. files comments or makes a formal appearance in a
23   proceeding authorized by the Minnesota Public Utilities
24   Commission, other than those commission proceedings that
25   are conducted to receive general public comments; or,
26
27   B. with the approval of judge, offers testimony or
28   evidence pursuant to part 1400.7150 or 1400.8605.

37  Subp. 8. Person. “Person” means any individual, business,
38   nonprofit association or society, or governmental entity.

As found in the PUC’s Rules, Minn. R. 7829.0100, Subp. 13 and 15:

Another in a trend of limiting participation by the public, QUESTIONING WITNESSES IS OUT – SAY WHAT????  See Draft Changes, p. 14-15 (see also p. 59-60):

45   Subp. 5. Participation by public. The judge may, in the
46  absence of a petition to intervene, nevertheless hear the

1    testimony and receive exhibits from any person at the
2    hearing, or allow a person to note that person’s appearance,
3    or allow a person to question witnesses, but no person shall
4    become, or be deemed to have become, a party by reason
5     of such participation. Persons offering testimony or exhibits
6    may be questioned by parties to the proceeding.

Where then PUC’s rules provide for much more — check out current Minn. R. 1405.0800, which they want to just ELIMINATE!  It starts here:

Excelsior Energy’s Mesaba Project has raised its ugly head again.  There were rumors for a long time that Micheletti wanted to change it to a natural gas plant.  Then they went to the legislature and got the “incentives” for their boondoggle “clean coal” plant, the “innovative technology” that doesn’t work…  they went to the MPCA and their air permit was AGAIN rejected as incomplete, and now they’ve gone to the PUC, requesting confirmation that the permits they have are valid.  Oh, PUH-LEEZE!

Here we go again…

mncoalgasplant.com will be filing comments, no doubt about it!

Would the PUC doesn’t transfer projects like this without amending the permit application, without verification of what indeed it is they want to do?  If you take the original ALJ Decision, the Permit Order and the Permit itself, redact everything related to coal gasification, what’s left?  Not much!  We need to know what they’re planning (if anything, this remains the vaporware project from hell).

This is the letter filed by Excelsior Energy — I don’t recall having received it, but will dig through the piles here, they DO have my correct address (though I note that they sent to Excelsior’s Evans, Greenman and Harrington at their OLD address!):

Excelsior Energy Request – May 31, 2012

Here is the PUC’s Notice of Comment Period, first round due June 29, 2012:

Notice of Comment Period

And what’s most disturbing is the legislative change in 2011, supported, DEMANDED, by Gov. Dayton:

Subd. 3. Staging and permitting.

(a) A natural gas-fired plant that is located on one site designated as an innovative energy project site under subdivision 1, clause (3), is accorded the regulatory incentives granted to an innovative energy project under subdivision 2, clauses (1) to (3), and may exercise the authorities therein.

(b) Following issuance of a final state or federal environmental impact statement for an innovative energy project that was a subject of contested case proceedings before an administrative law judge:

(1) site and route permits and water appropriation approvals for an innovative energy project must also be deemed valid for a plant meeting the requirements of paragraph (a) and shall remain valid until the earlier of (i) four years from the date the final required state or federal preconstruction permit is issued or (ii) June 30, 2019; and

(2) no air, water, or other permit issued by a state agency that is necessary for constructing an innovative energy project may be the subject of contested case hearings, notwithstanding Minnesota Rules, parts 7000.1750 to 7000.2200.

Here’s the link to the full Minn. Stat. 216B.1694.

Let’s hope he gets indicted soon…  Remember Nixon?

Is Scott Walker Facing Indictment and Does it Matter to Walker’s Wisconsin Supporters?

Given that most of his $30.9 came from outside Wisconsin, I’d alter that headline some and look at that!

Note this is an old map – I pulled it up at the Windfinder site and this is what it looks like today:

Anyway, the news from Friday is that the Obama Administration and some, but NOT all, of the Great Lakes States signed a Memorandum of Understanding, oh, also many federal agencies, like U.S. Fish & Wildlife.

I think this is an important step.  Lake Superior is too deep, but Lake Michigan and Lake Erie are the ones I’ve heard most often discussed as having high potential, and what’s particularly good about it is that they’re right near load centers.  Offshore would remove the “too close to neighbors” health concerns that are a significant issue.  But as with the Delaware Bluewater project, the environmental work needs to be done, and I hope it’s done more thoroughly than for on-shore wind.  What are infrasound impacts on marine life?  I’d asked Rick James, I.N.C.E., about this when he was here a couple years ago, and he hadn’t heard of any research on this point.  Hmmmmmm… big gap.

Google of  “impacts of infrasound on marine life”

So there’s a start… An interesting one is “The effects of human-generated sound on fish” which among other thing notes that it’s been suggested that birds use infrasound for migration, the waves bouncing of geological features!

Anyway, here’s the Memorandum of Understanding:

Great Lakes Offshore Wind Energy Consortium Memorandum of Understanding

And the Press Release:

Press Release (cut & pasted!)

Note that Wisconsin did NOT sign, which is consistent with WPPI’s testimony in the CapX 2020 Hampton-Rochester-LaCrosse docket that they want to get their RPS wind from outside WI, despite the fact that the model assumptions include an estimated 103,757 MW of wind generation potential at or above 30% capacity and 20,741 MW at or above 35% capacity, not including any Lake Michigan development.  Despite this potential in Wisconsin, his testimony was that he had his heart set on getting their RPS from west of Wisconsin!  His own Burns & McDonnell study, Exhibit 2, said:

If our understanding of current transmission planning results is correct, it is generally more expensive (than this breakeven indication) to build additional power transfer capability over such a long distance.  There may be other reasons that could justify such a build0out, but capacity factor differential alone does not.

Well DUH!

Here’s his testimony and Exhibits, worth a look:

Noeldner WPPI Direct Testimony

Noeldner – Exhibit 2 – Wind Economics Study & Model Produced for WPPI Energy

Noeldner – Exhibit 3 – Wind Assessment Model Results (see fn. 6)