Legalectric

Well, Jeremy Kalin is not happy with me, but I don’t see that amendments to the Tax Omnibus bill does it.   He says that all the local governments are covered in a Tax Omnibus amendment (Tax Omnibus is HF 2323, HERE) and that they must have a Host Fee Agreement.  But what I see is one amendment that is GOOD language I’ve been passing out since 2005, except for one serious problem — where I had “Host Fee Agreement” it says “site agreement.”  Color me a lawyer, but that’s not the same thing.  Here’s that amendment, 272.0275 below.  If it said “Host Fee Agreement” or “Agreement for payment in lieu of taxes” I’d be over the moon with joy, but this could mean anything and does not address payment of taxes.   What do you think?

103.6 Sec. 6. [272.0275] PERSONAL PROPERTY USED TO GENERATE
103.7 ELECTRICITY; EXEMPTION.
103.8 Subdivision 1. New plant construction after January 1, 2010. For a new
103.9 generating plant built and placed in service after January 1, 2010, its personal property
103.10 used to generate electric power is exempt if an exemption of generation personal property
103.11 form, with an attached siting agreement, is filed with the Department of Revenue. The
103.12 form must be signed by the utility, and the county and the city or town where the facility is
103.13 proposed to be located.
103.14 Subd. 2. Definition; applicability. For purposes of this section, “personal property”
103.15 means tools, implements, and machinery of the generating plant. The exemption under this
103.16 section does not apply to transformers, transmission lines, distribution lines, or any other
103.17 tools, implements, and machinery that are part of an electric substation, wherever located.
103.18 EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective the day following final enactment.

The language they put in that’s LS Power specific does offer protections, but given there are three lines into the Chisago sub, and a new one just announced going east into Wisconsin, I don’t see that any limitation of transmission routing would be effective.

Here’s the LS Power specific language, one sentence is now two (para.5 & 6), and there’s an added paragraph that it must be in a county with an essential services and transmission services ordinance (geeee, I wonder who helped write that?).  A signed “development agreement” does not address personal property taxes.  So I’m not satisfied (I know, always the bitch, but there it is, this isn’t enough, doesn’t have the right language).

1.29 Sec. 5. Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 272.02, is amended by adding a subdivision
101.30to read:
101.31 Subd. 92. Electric generation facility; personal property. (a) Notwithstanding
101.32subdivision 9, clause (a), attached machinery and other personal property that is part of
102.1an electric generation facility that exceeds 150 megawatts of installed capacity, does
102.2not exceed 780 megawatts of summer capacity, and that meets the requirements of this
102.3subdivision, is exempt. At the start of construction, the facility must:
102.4(1) be designed to utilize natural gas as a primary fuel;
102.5(2) be owned by an entity other than a public utility as defined in section 216B.02,
102.6subdivision 4;
102.7(3) be located within five miles of two or more interstate natural gas pipelines;
102.8(4) be located within one mile of an existing electrical transmission substation with
102.9operating alternating current voltages of 115 kV, 345 kV, and 500 kV;
102.10(5) be designed to provide electrical capacity, energy, and ancillary services;
102.11(6) have satisfied all of the requirements under section 216B.243;
102.12(7) have executed an interconnection agreement with the Midwest Independent
102.13System Operator that does not require the acquisition of more than one mile of new
102.14electric transmission right-of-way within the county where the facility is located, and does
102.15not provide for any other new routes or corridors for future electric transmission lines in
102.16the county where the facility is located;
102.17(8) be located in a county with an essential services and transmission services
102.18ordinance;
102.19(9) have signed a development agreement with the county board in the county in
102.20which the facility is located. The development agreement must be adopted by a two-thirds
102.21vote of the county board, and must contain provisions ensuring that:
102.22(i) the facility is designed to use effluent from a wastewater treatment facility as its
102.23preferred water source and will not seek an exemption from legislative approval under
102.24section 103G.265, subdivision 3, paragraph (b);
102.25(ii) all processed wastewater discharge will be colocated with the outfall of a
102.26wastewater treatment facility; and
102.27(iii) penalties will be paid to the county for harm to any aquifer or surface water as a
102.28result of construction or operation and maintenance of the facility; and
102.29(10) have signed a development agreement with the township board in the township
102.30in which the facility is located containing provisions ensuring that noise and visual
102.31impacts of the facility are fully mitigated. The development agreement must be adopted
102.32by a two-thirds vote of the township board.
102.33(b) Construction of the facility must begin after March 1, 2010, and before March 1,
102.342014. Property eligible for this exemption does not include electric transmission lines and
102.35interconnections or gas pipelines and interconnections appurtenant to the facility.
103.1(c) The exemption granted under this subdivision is void if the Public Utilities
103.2Commission issues a route permit for an electric transmission line connected to the
103.3electric substation nearest the exempt facility on a route where no electric transmission
103.4line currently exists.
103.5EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective the day following final enactment.

===================================

Why do elected officials do things like this?  Who are they representing?  Why would they give away a source of much needed local revenue for local governments?  Why would they do that without any kicker for the affected local governments making the sacrifice of hosting a HUGE electric generating facility?  Why would they put a for-profit independent power producer above their constituents?  Why would they let a corporation off the hook, at the same time that millions of taxpayers are lined up at the mailbox?  What makes this corporation special?

LOCAL GOVERNMENT APPROVAL???

H-O-S-T   F-E-E   A-G-R-E-E-M-E-N-T ???

Is it that difficult?

Did they bother to look at Minn. Stat. 272.02 to see how exemptions are done?

Yes, there’s a new power plant planned for Chisago County, and

Rep. Jeremy Kalin and Sen. Rick Olseen, joined by  Rep. Rob Eastlund and Rep. Bob Dettmer, have introduced a bill to exempt LS Power’s 855MW gas plant from utility personal property taxes.  And by this bill, they’re screwing their constituents.  How?  There’s no requirement in the bill that the local governments (Chisago County, Lent Township and the school district) approve this exemption AND there’s no requirement in the bill that there be a Host Fee Agreement.

Here’s the bill, SF 1671 and HF 2317:

As someone said today, “They’re telling us that all the plants get exemptions.”  To which I said, “Yes, and are they telling you that most also require that local governments approve it, and that they get a Host Fee Agreement?”  And of course, the answer was: NO!  Local governments need to know that there is an option that they’re not being told about, and an option that would provide serious financial benefits at a time when local governments are really hurting.

Where to go for guidance?  Look no further than language found in other exemptions, in Minn. Stat. 272.02:

Jeremy, Rick, add this language, quick before you take away revenue that they sorely need:

To qualify for an exemption under this subdivision, the owner of the electric generation facility must have an agreement with the host county, township or city, and school district, for payment in lieu of personal property taxes to the host county, township or city, and school district.

Or from the Cannon Falls Invenergy gas plant:

To qualify under this subdivision, an agreement must be negotiated between the municipal power agency and the host city, for a payment in lieu of property taxes to the host city.

This is something we learned in Goodhue County, dealing with the Prairie Island nuclear generating plant, these are for-profit independent power producers, and they have to pay their fair share.  If they’re exempted, there must be a requirement that they pay their fair share to the county, township and school district to compensate them for hosting the plant.

Here’s a memo from Goodhue County’s former Auditor, Brad Johnson, who is now the head financial honch at the School District, still hot on the trail of that utility personal property tax:

Brad Johnson letter – Invenergy Peaking Plant, Goodhue County

Here’s a Resolution from Scott County showing how to do it, how to stand up on your hinders when faced with a corporation with its slimy hand out, or rather, its slimy hand in your pants pocket (hand in your pants, perhaps?):

Scott County Xcel Resolution

OK, Chisago County, Lent Township, and the school district, it’s YOUR turn.  Rep. Kalin and Sen. Olseen, it’s YOUR turn.  Step up to the plate, stand up for your constituents!

Meanwhile, I’ll keep looking for those Goodhue County and Scott County Host Fee Agreements.

THE MESABA PROJECT IS DEAD, DEAD, DEAD!  Coal gasification is not happening.  IGCC ist zu ende!  How many silver stakes through its slimy heart will it take?

Once more with feeling:

IGCC is TOO EXPENSIVE!

IGCC doesn’t provide any significant environmental benefit!

IGCC is not in the public interest!

This is from Charlotte Neigh, Co-Chair of Citizens Against the Mesaba Project, who, having reviewed the recent spin-doctoring of Excelsior Energy, and their tentacle-reach toward Minnesota Municipal Utilities — they’re trying to make it look like they’ve got something they haven’t got:

It is not correct to say that the federal government would back 73 percent of the total cost, or that the federal government has “pledged” $800 million in loan guarantees, or that municipal utilities would have to raise only 27 percent of the project costs to secure ownership of Unit 1 of the Mesaba Project.

Excelsior Energy has not yet been awarded any loan guarantees. It is one of eleven final applicants to share in a pool of $4 billion. Excelsior admits that its negotiations with DOE will continue throughout 2009. DOE stated in October 2007 that projects relying upon a smaller guarantee percentage will be given greater weight. Despite this statement, Excelsior repeatedly misled the media and even the PUC about the status of the loan guarantees, suggesting that they would cover 80 percent of the project costs.

Apparently Excelsior is now seeking 73 percent but this is a long way from becoming reality. A key requirement for qualifying is to have an assurance of revenues to be generated from sale of the product. This means a long-term commitment from a customer to purchase the energy. This is why the failure to achieve a PPA with Xcel Energy is critical. Other obstacles are DOE requirements for: credit assessment without a loan guarantee; approval of environmental and other permits; reduced greenhouse gases; and relative amount of cash contributed by the principals.

Now Excelsior is trying to entice municipal utilities into purchasing ownership interests by suggesting that 100 percent ownership can be obtained by raising 27 percent of the costs. Municipal utilities should carefully assess the likelihood that this amount or any loan guarantees at all will be awarded for the Mesaba Project before issuing bonds to finance such a purchase.

More information and analysis about the federal loan guarantees can be found by scrolling down to the October 8, 2007 entry on the CAMP website: www.camp-site.info/

Charlotte Neigh, Co-Chair
Citizens Against the Mesaba Project

Here’s an example of the bogus spin, from Business North — note she can’t even get the announcement time-frame right… Excelsior announced Mesaba in December, 2001, that’s EIGHT years ago:

No customer for controversial energy project

Excelsior Energy targets municipal PUCs in search for a buyer as key May 1 deadline looms.

4/1/2009
by Beth Bily

About six years ago in the wake of the permanent closing of LTV Steel Mining in Hoyt Lakes, momentum began to develop behind a project concept, one since celebrated and renounced.

That proposed Mesaba Energy project with a price estimated at $2 billion has moved through various phases of public review to a potentially new location further west. Along the way it has become one of the most vigorously debated economic development initiatives proposed for Minnesota’s Iron Range.

Meanwhile, an important deadline looms that could make or break the project. The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission had ordered talks between Mesaba’s parent, Excelsior Energy, and power giant, Twin Cities-based Xcel Energy. The two sides were directed to negotiate a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) for the approximate 600 megawatts of electricity Mesaba’s proposed Unit One would produce. That ordered negotiation period ends on May 1 and there is no evidence an agreement will be reached.

Read the rest of this entry »

Kandiyohi Development is at it again, trying to ram through an incinerator in Rockford, Minnesota.  Here’s a prior post:

Kandiyohi moves to Rockford?

Apparently, their plans to site in in the City of Rockford crashed, so they went to the neighboring township.  Yesterday, they went down in flames in both Rockford Township and Wright County where they’re trying to locate this thing — both local governments, on hearing their pitch to be exempted from utility personal property taxes and asking for their blessing, said NO!  We’re not signing off on a utility personal property tax exemption!

The School Board is next…

Here’s the bill that they’re trying to get through the legislature, SF 703 and HF 845 that needs to be stopped pronto:

1.8    Subd. 90. Biomass electrical generation facility; personal property.
1.9    Notwithstanding subdivision 9, paragraph (a), attached machinery and other personal
1.10  property which is part of an electrical generation facility that meets the requirements of
1.11   this subdivision is exempt. At the time of construction, the facility must:
1.12     (1) have a generation capacity of less than 30 megawatts;
1.13     (2) be located within a township with a population of less than 7,000;
1.14     (3) be located on land within five miles of a distribution substation;
1.15     (4) be designed to utilize biomass as a primary fuel source;
1.16     (5) be owned by a limited liability company, limited liability partnership or
1.17   corporation, any of which must be registered in Minnesota; and
1.18     (6) have received by resolution the approval of the governing body of the county,
1.19   township, and school board in which the proposed facility is to be located for the
1.20   exemption of personal property under this subdivision.
1.21   Construction of the facility must be commenced before January 1, 2013. Property
1.22   eligible for this exemption does not include electric transmission lines and interconnections
1.23   or gas pipelines and interconnections appurtenant to the property or the facility.
1.24   EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective the day following final enactment.

Who to contact about this?  It’s been sent to the House Tax Committee and the Senate Energy Committee, so start there.

Authors to blame for this are:  Senators Koch, Dibble and Dille,  and Representatives Emmer, Dill and Rukavina.

Click here to contact them:

Senator Amy Koch

Senator Scott Dibble

Senator Steve Dille

Representative Tom Emmer

Representative David Dill

Representative Tom Rukavina

Call and email them today!

You’d think that Dill and Rukavina would have learned with that Laurentian biomass burner that violated its permit and had to be shut down, the MPCA had to rework the permit so that it could even run, and it has been having so many problems and is out of service so often that the ratepayers are FURIOUS!

Here’s the language we added to the Mesaba bill, now Minn. Stat. 272.02, Subd. 55, to require “payment in lieu of taxes” which would tank the project:

To qualify for an exemption under this subdivision, the owner of the electric generation facility must have an agreement with the host county, township or city, and school district, for payment in lieu of personal property taxes to the host county, township or city, and school district.

I think this is the one for the Invenergy plant in Cannon Falls, Minn. Stat. 272.02, Subd. 69:

To qualify under this subdivision, an agreement must be negotiated between the municipal power agency and the host city, for a payment in lieu of property taxes to the host city.

I-10 billboard criticizes LA proposal to run electrical lines through Inland areas

By JANET ZIMMERMAN
The Press-Enterprise

Opponents of Green Path North, a plan to route about 80 miles of electrical transmission lines through the desert near Joshua Tree National Park and the foothills of San Bernardino County, have taken their protest to Interstate 10.

The Wildlands Conservancy rented a billboard along the eastbound freeway, just east of the outlet mall in Cabazon, to protest the project proposed by the city of Los Angeles. The ad depicts a sunset over Joshua trees and the park’s signature rocks. It includes a red slash through a picture of a transmission tower and the Web address of the California Desert Coalition, a conservancy-associated group formed to fight Green Path.

The billboard reads: “L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, It’s not yours to destroy!”

The sign is aimed at capturing the eye of desert-bound tourists, said David Myers, executive director of The Wildlands Conservancy. It is the first full-size display in a 100-billboard, $400,000 campaign, he said.

The conservancy is an Oak Glen nonprofit that acquires and preserves open space for public use. The group owns the 20,000-acre Pipes Canyon Wilderness, northeast of Yucca Valley near Pioneertown, and land in Oak Glen, both areas the group says could be in the route of Green Path North. A smaller billboard was posted last year along Oak Glen Road in Oak Glen.

“We’re just going to do whatever it takes to protect our communities,” Myers said. “It speaks directly to the mayor about destroying our local lands and begs Angelinos to be a good sister city.”

Neither Villaraigosa’s office nor a spokesman for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power returned phone calls Tuesday seeking comment.

“Mayor Villaraigosa is the only single person who can stop this without a whole lot of process. We wanted to put it in his lap, to tell him, ‘This is your responsibility. This is your legacy you’re playing with,’ ” said David Miller, of Pioneertown, who took the photographs for the billboard.

Last fall, The Wildlands Conservancy launched a postcard-writing campaign to Villaraigosa urging him to choose a different route for Green Path North. Myers said 35,000 postcards were sent from Oak Glen in an effort to keep high-voltage towers off the hilltops surrounding the apple-growing region.

The controversial Green Path North project would route geothermal energy from the Salton Sea, as well as wind and solar power, to 5 million customers in Los Angeles and possibly some Inland cities.

Opponents, including numerous desert cities and the counties of Riverside and San Bernardino, say the project would devastate pristine land and critical habitat and could lead to a federal utility corridor designation that might be used for more utility projects.

Los Angeles officials have said they would need a path no more than 330 feet wide and would take steps to bury lines in sensitive areas.

Check out the site for the:

California Desert Coalition

And here’s the map of  LA’s preferred corridor, and the wide line on the map is accurate as they’re planning a TWO to FIVE mile wide corridor!  Really!  TWO to FIVE miles!

Here’s another site — groups fighting this stupid “Green Path North” idea:

STOP Green Path North, LADWP and Imperial Irrigation District

Here’s the Executive Order — let’s have one in every state:

EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVE No. 2009 – 2

Consideration of Feasible and Prudent Alternatives in the Processing of Air Permit Applications from Coal-Fired Power Plants

WHEREAS, Section 1 of Article V of the Michigan Constitution of 1963 vests the executive power of the State of Michigan in the Governor;

WHEREAS, under Section 8 of Article V of the Michigan Constitution of 1963, each principal department of state government is under the supervision of the Governor unless otherwise provided by the Constitution;

WHEREAS, under Section 8 of Article V of the Michigan Constitution of 1963, the Governor is responsible to take care that the laws be faithfully executed;

WHEREAS, under Section 52 of Article IV of the Michigan Constitution of 1963, the conservation and development of the natural resources of this state are matters of paramount public concern in the interest of the health, safety, and general welfare of the people;

WHEREAS, under Section 51 of Article IV of the Michigan Constitution of 1963, the public health and general welfare of the people of the state are matters of primary public concern;

WHEREAS, Part 17 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, MCL 324.1701 to 324.1706, provides in part that “[i]n administrative, licensing, or other proceedings, and in any judicial review of such a proceeding, the alleged pollution, impairment, or destruction of the air, water, or other natural resources, or the public trust in these resources, shall be determined, and conduct shall not be authorized or approved that has or is likely to have such an effect if there is a feasible and prudent alternative consistent with the reasonable requirements of the public health, safety, and welfare”;

WHEREAS, Part 17 of the National Resources and Environmental Protection Act is supplemental to existing administrative and regulatory procedures provided by law;

WHEREAS, under Part 55 of the National Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, MCL 324.5501 to 324.5542, and Executive Order 1995-18, MCL 324.99903, the Department of Environmental Quality has the authority to grant permits for the construction and operation of sources of air emissions under the federal Clean Air Act, 42 USC 7401 to 7671q;

WHEREAS, Section 5541 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, MCL 324.5541, provides that Part 55 of the Act “does not repeal any of the laws relating to air pollution which are not by this part expressly repealed.  This part is ancillary to and supplements the laws now in force, except as they may be in direct conflict with this part”;

WHEREAS, under Section 165(a)(2) of the federal Clean Air Act, 42 USC 7475(a)(2), the Department of Environmental Quality has the discretion to consider alternatives to proposed sources of air emissions when determining whether or not to grant an air permit to that source;

WHEREAS, coal-fired electricity generating plants annually emit thousands of tons of air emissions, including, but not limited to, greenhouse gases, that threaten the air, water, and other natural resources of Michigan and the health, safety, and general welfare of Michigan residents;

WHEREAS, circumstances have changed since the 21st Century Energy Plan, issued pursuant to Executive Directive 2006-2, projected that Michigan’s total electric generation requirements would grow at 1.3% annually until 2025, as evidenced by the Michigan Public Service Commission’s projection in its Winter 2008/2009 Energy Appraisal that electricity sales decreased 1.4% in Michigan in 2008;

WHEREAS, the enactment of the Clean, Renewable, and Efficient Energy Act, 2008 PA 295, MCL 460.1001 to 460.1195, has reduced the need for additional coal-fired electricity generating plants in Michigan by providing for the use of energy efficiency and renewable energy to meet future electricity needs in this state, reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels such as coal;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Jennifer M. Granholm, Governor of the State of Michigan, by virtue of the power and authority vested in the Governor by the Michigan Constitution of 1963 and Michigan law, direct:

A. Before issuing a permit to install under Part 55 of the National Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, MCL 324.5501 to 324.5542, for the construction of a new coal-fired electricity generating plant, the Department of Environmental Quality shall determine whether there is a feasible and prudent alternative consistent with the reasonable requirements of the public health, safety, and welfare that would better protect the air, water, and other natural resources of this state from pollution than the proposed coal-fired electricity generating plant.

B. Before making the determination required by Paragraph A, the Department shall first determine whether a reasonable electricity generation need exists in this state that would be served by the proposed coal-fired electricity generating plant.  If a reasonable electricity generation need exists in this state, the Department shall estimate the extent of the reasonable electricity generation need.

C. The Department shall next consider alternative methods of meeting the reasonable electricity generation need, including, but not limited to, each of the following:

1. Constructing new electricity generating resources that use technologies other than the burning of coal or that generate electricity from coal using technologies that reduce or sequester emissions.

2. Reducing electricity demand and peak demand through energy efficiency programs or load management techniques.

3. Generating or purchasing electricity from existing electricity generating resources.

D. If the Department determines that a feasible and prudent alternative to the construction of a new proposed coal-fired electricity generating plant exists consistent with the reasonable requirements of the public health, safety, and welfare that would better protect the air, water, and other natural resources of this state than the proposed coal-fired electricity generating plant, the Department shall not issue a permit to install.

E. The Michigan Public Service Commission shall provide technical assistance to the Department in making determinations required by this Directive.

F. All departments, committees, commissioners, or officers of the executive branch of this state shall give to the Department of Environmental Quality any necessary assistance required by the Department in the performance of the duties of this Directive, so far as is compatible with its, his, or her duties.  Free access shall also be given to any books, records, or documents in its, his, or her custody, relating to matters within the scope of inquiry, study, or review of the Department under this Directive.

This Directive is effective immediately.

Given under my hand this 3rd day of February in the year of our Lord, two thousand and nine.

____________________________________

JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM

GOVERNOR

Copyright © 2009 State of Michigan