Legalectric

Rep. Zoe Lofgren has released a “Social Media Review” that “lists public social media posts from Members of the U.S. House of Representatives who were sworn-in to office in January 2021 and who voted to overturn the 2020 presidential election.” Most of the articles I see about this do not link to the actual “Social Media Review” so here it is, and below, state by state.

She is correct in challenging Representatives who supported and/or engaged in the (failed) insurrection of January 6, 2021:

Fourteenth Amendment 

• Section 3. No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
  • Amdt14.S3.1 Disqualification from Holding Office
    • Amdt14.S3.1.1  Disqualification Clause

For Minnesota, the “Social Media Review” features “our” Rep. Michelle Fischbach and Rep. Jim Hagedorn.

• Contact Rep. Michelle Fischbach
• Contact Rep. Jim Hagedorn

Social Media Review

The review is LARGE, it’s a HUGE file. You can also look up findings state by state:

• Alabama             (PDF)
• Arizona               (PDF)
• Arkansas            (PDF)
• California           (PDF)
• Colorado            (PDF)
• Florida                (PDF)
• Georgia               (PDF)
• Idaho                   (PDF)
• Illinois                  (PDF)
• Indiana                 (PDF)
• Kansas                  (PDF)
• Kentucky              (PDF)
• Louisiana             (PDF)
• Michigan              (PDF)
• Minnesota            (PDF)
• Mississippi           (PDF)
• Missouri               (PDF)
• Montana               (PDF)
• Nebraska              (PDF)
• New Mexico         (PDF)
• New York              (PDF)
• North Carolina     (PDF)
• Ohio                      (PDF)
• Oklahoma            (PDF)
• Oregon                 (PDF)
• Pennsylvania       (PDF)
• South Carolina    (PDF)
• Tennessee           (PDF)
• Texas                   (PDF)
• Utah                    (PDF)
• Virginia               (PDF)
• West Virginia     (PDF)
• Wisconsin          (PDF)

Xcel Energy’s 10-K for 2020 is out:

Peak demand remains under 9,000MW:

Note the peak was 2006, we got close in 2011, but not above that 2006 peak. Right now, we’re 1,200MW below that 2006 peak, essentially the equivalent of Prairie Island nuclear plant’s two reactors.

We’ve got the surplus generation to make some choices, folks…

Solar is big in Wisconsin, as wind is in Minnesota, and like wind in Minnesota, there are no siting rules for solar in Wisconsin. A while ago, well, years ago, Jewell Jinkins Intervenors filed a rulemaking petition with the WI Public Service Commission:

Petition for Rulemaking_JJI_Solar

And lo and behold, as in Minnesota, they didn’t see any need for siting criteria and rulemaking and of course no need for rules requiring environmental review:

PSC Order_2-6-2019- Denial of Rulemaking Petition

And then yesterday, while strolling through the PSC Comment page, looking to assure that our solar docket comment option was working correctly, I found this:

WHAT?!?!?! And that was the 14th, comment period ends on the 15th! AAACK, one day.

Here’s the “Draft” of what PSC now thinks should be in an application for a solar project, and damned if it doesn’t bring up most of the issues we’ve been struggling to raise with the PSC for years now! READ THIS:

And so with nothing else to do… NOT…after getting 53 revisions of testimony and reformatting of exhibits, I got ahold of my Grant County and Badger Hollow clients and we teamed up to do comments, and I slammed this together this morning:

Do read the PSC’s proposal, it’s nothing short of amazing. The touch on all the issues, could be beefed up, but given all the difficulties we’ve had in getting issues a bit of consideration, and given the Commission’s rejection of our Rulemaking petition, like wow!!

Here’s everything filed in the docket as of today’s comment deadline:

PSC Docket 5-AFR-700 filings

On the other hand, their idea of who should be on the Service List is appalling, just the utility companies, municipal electric, and the usual toadies.

Solar AFR Mailing List

Earth to Mars, there are quite a few VERY LARGE solar projects going right now, how hard would it be to add all the intervenors and commentors to this list? This is 2021, the age of computers and electronic filing and hearings… JUST DO IT!

And from NextEra/Grant County Solar, LLC:

Turns out that this morning, I received an “invitation” to the Public Utilities Commission meeting tomorrow.

Tune in: Agenda MTG Thursday, February 4, 2021, 1pm

Meeting Details Agenda Live Webcast Viewing Instructions

I’d really not had time to think much about this on Monday, had to take a quick look and zip something off — testimony was due for WI so I had lots of back and forth with clients — so in afterthought, I realized that I’d missed the flip side of this, that the folks complaining were left in the dark here. THEY’RE NOT EVEN ON THE SERVICE LIST! WTF??!?!?!

So today after I got the Wisconsin testimony filed, I fired off a missive, and as I went to file, there were Xcel filings in the inbox:

Here’s my second missive:

Here’s my post from Monday:

Blazing Star Wind NOISE!

February 1st, 2021