Legalectric

drat, computer needs to be burped, it doesn’t want that CapX2020 big picture map == too much for even my machine to swallow.

This is the day where we address their “Notice Plan.” Here’s the link for each of the announced projects, but if you’re not included, don’t worry, there’s more, enough to go have 200,00 landowners on the affected landowners list!

I’ll try to burp the machine and get the map up there.

Where can you find CapX2020, S.F. 1368, C-BED and TRANSLink together? It’s all connected, we know that, but it’s made simple for us right there on the Capx2020 site. There’s some interesting stuff if you go to left side of home page, to the Midwest Municipal Transmission Group site, and from there pick through the chaff and find the goodies, like Bylaws, and big ol’ spreadsheets full of calculations (how long until this disappears?). C-BED, here’s the SoS registration. And here’s the “C-BED study.”

Yes, it’s all connected. And here on the site, they don’t even give a complete list of all the projects. Can’t have all 200,000 affected landowners knowing what’s coming… sort of like the nuclear power proposal in South Dakota… Compare THIS LIST with this: capx-2020-proposed-lines.pdf Oh, but that’s just Phase I. Here it is, here’s Phase II: 2005-mto-transmission-plan-phase-ii.pdf

200,000 affected landowners. Say no more…

Excelsior now has radio ads on a station in Duluth! The lengths they’ll go to to promote this thing…

Important meeting coming up:

MINNESOTA DEPT. OF COMMERCE PUBLIC MEETINGS ON
MESABA COAL PLANT ENERGY PROJECT

Tuesday, August 22nd, 2006 at 7:00 pm
Taconite Community Center
26 Haynes Street
Taconite, Minnesota

Wednesday, August 23rd, 2006 at 7:00 pm
Hoyt Lakes Arena
102 Kennedy Memorial Drive
Hoyt Lakes, Minnesota

DOC will conduct two public scoping meetings in which agencies, organizations, and the general public is invited to present oral comments or suggestions with regard to the range of alternatives and environmental issues to be considered in the EIS.

Here’s the DoC Comment Notice.

Here’s a Comment form you can use:Â Â eis_comment_form.doc
Comments are due by August 30. Email (click here) or send to:

Bill Storm
Dept. of Commerce
85 – 7th Place E., Suite 500
St. Paul, MNÂ 55101-2198

August 30 is not that far away! Get your comments in today!

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

And fresh editorials from the Grand Rapids Herald Review:

 Project will affect people’s health

Editor:

There are times when sacrifices made to promote economic development may be appropriate. However, I am troubled by the massive sacrifices that our elected officials are supporting for the handful of permanent jobs proposed by the Mesaba Energy project. In addition to around 100 permanent jobs (a reduction by 900 since the original proposal) there are other â??developmentsâ? Excelsior Energyâ??s IGCC (Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle) plants will bring if built.

Canisteo Lake will be closed for recreational use and a massive pumping station will operate on the lake to serve the plant. One hundred-forty foot transmission towers will impede on private and public land, forcing landowners off in a controversial use of eminent domain. People will become sick as documented in Excelsiorâ??s own literature. Miles and miles of coal trains will travel through Grand Rapids each week. Snowmobile trails will close or reroute to make room for the plant footprint. One thousand two hundred acres of hunting land will now be off-limits. Carbon dioxide will be pumped into the air, contributing to global warming, along with tons of sulfur dioxide, pounds of mercury, and other particulates that cause asthma and other respiratory problems. Children will be exposed to unsafe levels of electro magnetic fields, putting them at greater risk for childhood leukemia. Groundwater aquifers that supply drinking water to nearby communities are at risk for contamination when Canisteo Lake becomes polluted. Millions upon millions of dollars will be bonded by the county, placing us at financial risk and possibly increasing our property taxes. How will schools, health care facilities, and housing developers deal with the glut and then absence of hundreds of imported construction workers? Hire then fire? Build then abandon?

Our health is our wealth. Development that endangers our personal, environmental, and financial health to this extent is too big a sacrifice for us to take on. We should demand better! The carbon dioxide can be captured in IGCC technology but not in this location. More mercury can be captured than what Excelsior is proposing. Technology exists to prevent water pollution. Local dollars do not have to be used to build infrastructure. My hope is that we can promote economic development in a way that achieves balance and addresses the reality of the future.

Kristen K. Anderson
Bovey

-=============================================

Quality of life is in danger

Editor:
As I read the information provided in the Environmental Supplement for Excelsior Energy’s proposed coal gasification plant I became very angry. How is it that a power plant with a potential to contaminate our wells and the air we breathe could even be considered for this area when no one has demonstrated the need for the electricity and the power would be sent down to the Cities and beyond anyway. Where are the people that were given the responsibility of protecting our health?

If this plant is built in this beautiful area I will have lost all faith in the system, the checks and balance that were designed to protect our quality of life. We should look at the future results of this and keep in mind that this will effect us a lot more then what they are showing or telling us.

Pam Perry
BoveyÂ

Here’s Bob’s missive, helping folks prep for next week’s meeting:

Last week you received the attached meeting notice and agenda for an upcoming meeting at the Public Utilities Commission offices on August 15Â regarding the State Transmission Plan process, focusing specifically on ways to improve public participation. The following information is provided as further background for those who may not be familiar with how the process has developed since the 2001 enabling legislation. If you have questions, or comments, please contact me directly, either before or after the meeting.

Bob’s contact info is way down there, email is bob.cupit@state.mn.us

FYI, meeting is:

August 15, 2006
9 a.m. to 12 noon
PUC Large Hearing Room
121 – 7th Place E., St. Paul

Link to State Transmission Planning reports for 2003 & 2005 and zone map:

http://minnelectrans.com/Â Includes:

• Links to the public meeting presentations
• Utility Contact Information
• Web links & resources
• Public Meeting Summaries, 2005

216B.2425 State transmission Plan – Public Participation excerpt:

Subd.2c4. (4) provide a summary of public input related to the list of inadequacies and the role of local government officials and other interested persons in assisting to develop the list and analyze alternatives.

Link to transmission planning statute: http://ros.leg.mn/bin/getpub.php?pubtype=STAT_CHAP_SEC&year=2005&section=216B.2425&keyword_type=exact&keyword=state+transmission+plan

The State Transmission Plan is governed by Minnesota rules, Chapter 7848. Link to rule:

http://ros.leg.mn/bin/getpub.php?pubtype=RULE_CHAP&year=current&section=7848&keyword_type=exact&keyword=transmission+plan

Public Participation excerpts:

7848.0700 TRANSMISSION PLANNING ZONES.

To facilitate meaningful public participation in transmission planning, the state is hereby divided into six transmission planning zones: northwest, northeast, southwest, southeast, west central, and Twin Cities metropolitan. The boundaries of these transmission planning zones are shown in the map at part 7848.9900.

NOTICE:

7848.0800Â TRANSMISSION PLANNING MAILING LISTS.

Each utility shall maintain a mailing list, called the transmission planning mailing list, of persons who ask to be notified of transmission planning meetings and related matters. Each utility shall post on its Web site a telephone number and e-mail address that members of the public may use to place their names on this list.

7848.0900 TRANSMISSION PLANNING MEETINGS.

Subpart 1. Securing input of the public and local and tribal governments. Jointly or individually, utilities shall seek the assistance and input of local government officials, tribal government officials, and interested members of the public in identifying transmission inadequacies and alternative means of addressing them. To help secure this assistance and input, each utility shall hold transmission planning meetings as

follows:

A. at least one transmission planning meeting each year in each transmission planning zone in which the utility intends to propose a high-voltage transmission line within the next five years; and

B. at least two transmission planning meetings in each affected transmission planning zone in the year in which it files for certification of a proposed high-voltage transmission line.

Utilities may fulfill this obligation by holding joint transmission planning meetings. Transmission planning meetings must be open to the public.

Subp. 2. Issues to address in transmission planning meetings. At transmission planning meetings the utilities shall:

A. answer questions;

B. seek information on local transmission needs and related energy needs;

C. seek input on transmission inadequacies they have identified and input on different ways to address these identified transmission inadequacies;

D. present an overview of:

(1) the Minnesota transmission system;

(2) any inadequacies in the Minnesota transmission system that the utility believes must be addressed within the next

ten years and alternative ways, including nontransmission alternatives, to address these inadequacies; and

(3) the factors that influence transmission needs in the transmission zone, the state, and adjacent states;

E. provide a description of any high-voltage transmission line under serious consideration for construction within the transmission zone in the next five years;

F. provide a general description of each line’s probable social, environmental, and economic effects and an account of all alternatives considered;

G. present information on the best routing information available;

H. provide a description of general right-of-way requirements for a line of the size and voltage proposed and a statement that the utility intends to acquire property rights for the right-of-way that the proposed line will require; and

I. present a brief description of the regulatory approval processes to which each line is subject.

7848.1000 OUTREACH EFFORTS FOR TRANSMISSION PLANNING MEETINGS.

Subpart 1. Notice to interested persons. Utilities shall conduct outreach efforts to inform local government officials, tribal government officials, and members of the public about the transmission plan meetings required in this part. At a minimum, utilities shall take the following actions:

A. mail to each county government within the transmission planning zone written materials briefly summarizing the transmission plan process; inviting local government input; giving the date, time, and place of the transmission planning meeting; and inviting the county to designate someone to serve as a liaison between the county and the utility on transmission issues;

B. mail to each tribal government within the transmission planning zone written materials briefly summarizing the transmission planning process; inviting tribal government input; giving the date, time, and place of the transmission planning meeting; and inviting the tribal government to designate someone to serve as a liaison between the tribal government and the utility on transmission issues;

C. mail to the League of Minnesota Cities written materials briefly summarizing the transmission planning process; inviting input from the league and municipalities within the transmission planning zone; giving the date, time, and place of the transmission planning meeting; and inviting the league to designate someone to serve as a liaison between the league and the utility on transmission issues;

D. mail to the Association of Minnesota Counties written materials briefly summarizing the transmission planning process; inviting input from the association; giving the date, time, and place of the transmission planning meeting; and inviting the association to designate someone to serve as a liaison between the association and the utility on transmission issues;

E. mail to the Minnesota Association of Townships written materials briefly summarizing the transmission planning process; inviting input from the association; giving the date, time, and place of the transmission planning meeting; and inviting the association to designate someone to serve as a liaison between the association and the utility on transmission issues;

F. mail to the board, the department, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the United States Park Service written materials briefly summarizing the transmission planning process; inviting input from these agencies; giving the date, time, and place of the transmission planning meeting; and inviting each of these agencies to designate a person to serve as its liaison between the agency and the utility on transmission issues;

G. publish display advertisements in at least one newspaper of general circulation in the county seat of each county within the transmission planning zone briefly summarizing the transmission planning process; inviting public input; and giving the date, time, and place of the transmission planning meeting;

H. mail to all persons who have asked to be on the utility’s transmission planning mailing list and to all persons on the official service list for the previous biennial transmission projects report a notice of the date, time, and place of the transmission planning meeting; and

I. post on the utility’s Web site information about transmission planning meetings briefly summarizing the transmission planning process; identifying utility representatives who can provide further information; inviting public input; providing addresses, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses for public input; and giving the date, time, and place of upcoming transmission planning meetings.

Subp. 2. Timing of mailings. The written materials required under subpart 1, items A through F, must be mailed no later than 15 days before the transmission planning meeting to which they relate. The written materials required under subpart 1, item H, must be mailed no sooner than 30 days or later than ten days before the transmission planning meeting to which they relate. The newspaper advertisements required under subpart 1, item G, must appear no sooner than 30 days and no later than ten days before the transmission planning meeting to which they relate.

7848.1100 FOLLOW-UP ON TRANSMISSION PLANNING MEETINGS.

Utilities shall encourage but not require persons attending transmission planning meetings to sign an attendance register and to list mailing and e-mail addresses to which the utility can send transmission planning updates. Following each transmission planning meeting the utility shall prepare a synopsis of its presentation, public input received, and how the public input has influenced its decision-making process. The utility shall mail or e-mail this synopsis to all persons who signed the attendance register and listed a mailing or e-mail address, all persons who have asked to be on the utility’s transmission planning mailing list, and each transmission liaison designated under part 7848.1000, subpart 1. The utility shall also post the synopsis on its Web site.

7848.1200 KEEPING RECORDS RELATED TO TRANSMISSION PLANNING MEETINGS.

Utilities shall retain the following materials for ten years:

A. attendance registers from transmission planning meetings;

B. copies of written materials mailed or published under part 7848.1000, subpart 1;

C. copies of written materials distributed at, after, or otherwise in connection with transmission planning meetings;

D. mailing and publication lists for materials mailed or published under part 7848.1000, subpart 1, or otherwise in connection with transmission planning meetings;

E. copies of all written and e-mail comments on transmission planning issues received from members of the public, local government officials, and tribal government officials; and

F. copies of notes on telephone comments on transmission planning issues received from members of the public, local government officials, and tribal government officials.

Here’s Bob’s contact info, he’s been around long enough that he knows practically everything about transmission planning in Minnesota! Tell him you saw this on Legalectric!

Bob Cupit    bob.cupit@state.mn.us
Senior Facility Planner
Reliability and Facilities Permitting
Minnesota Public Utilities Commission

Phone: 651-201-2255

121 7th Place East, Suite 350
St. Paul, MN 55101-2147

www.puc.state.mn.us

.

Transmission happens… that’s the big lesson of the 2005 Transmission Omnibus Bill from Hell. This bill gave utilities everything they ever wanted in a transmission bill, carte blanche, enough to make any property owner blanch. And you’d better get ready, because transmission is coming to a field and town near you! Skeptics say “Oh, right” but hey, I’ve got THREE lines coming to Red Wing, THREE, and TWO in “Phase I” of the CapX2020 plan. Phase I list HERE! And to get an idea what’s in store, here’s the full REPORT.

This big long list of projects comin’ to town is on my brain because Notice Plans have been issued for three of them, two of them coming to Red Wing, one in and one out, and the other is the Chisago Project, and I represented CRVC in the latter part of their struggle against that line.

I was talking with Bob Cupit, Energy Pooh-Bah at Commerce, and he mentioned that the CapX2020 folks had told him that 200,000 landowners would be affected by all these transmission projects around the state. 200,000! And Bob’s not one to exaggerate!

200,000 landowners. I’m thinking of having 200,000 thank you notes printed out for those 200,000 landowners to send George Crocker, North American Water Office, and Bill Grant , Izaak Walton League, to thank them for this bill that they pushed through. The 2005 Transmission Omnibus Bill from Hell was ushered through the legislature as “a deal, a package deal, and it’s a good deal,” and they would not alter it. So now this is the price, 200,000 landowners with transmission over their land. Thank you, George! Thank you, Bill! This is your legacy. For me, I’m likely to get some work out of it, because who else knows anything about transmission, but the magnitude of this turns my stomach. Much as I love my work, there is nothing worse than having clients losing their homes, their land, and now that the 2005 Transmission Omnibus Bill from Hell went through, it’s awfully hard to stop a transmission line. When utilities can claim “regional” need, and no longer have to prove the line is to serve local load, there’s not a lot to fight about! Thanks, George! Thanks, Bill! This is your legacy and you will have to live with what you’ve done — and I’m not about to let anyone forget the roots of all these transmission lines and eminent domain proceedings in our energy future.

If you want to salvage your souls, you’ve got to renounced the “deal, a package deal, and it’s a good deal” and do what it takes to undo the 2005 Transmission Omnibus Bill from Hell. And your TRANSLink deal, where you bargained away the public interest and gave TRANSLink (Xcel, etc.) all they wanted, and the material terms of which became the 2005 Transmission Omnibus Bill from Hell, renounce it. Renounce the TRANSLink deal and the 2005 transmission deal. Disclose whatever it was you got, give it back, give it all back! Get to work! And in the meantime, you’ve got a lot of explaining to do to 200,000 landowners. And do your constituents know what you’ve done?

As I talk with my Chisago Project folks, it’s clear to us that it’s not the same fight. The rules, the criteria, have changed, and we’re going to have to find a whole ‘nother approach. Maybe a good place to start would be the earlier deal between NSP and the City of Taylors Falls and the City of St. Croix Falls (that deal that George was stumping for at the Festival Theater, urging CRVC to adopt it, hmmmmmmmm…). If just alluding to that deal was enough to spur former Mayor Lundgren (now felon) of St. Croix Falls to order me arrested at a public meeting, it’s worth some digging…

200,000 landowners — transmission coming soon to a field and town near you!