Legalectric

This stuff is technical, and takes some time. So while I’m slaving away, scanning documents, think about this.

The claim is that we “need” 6,000MW of generation (p. 4) in the area and we don’t have it AND WE’RE GOING TO BROIL WITHOUT AIR-CONDITIONING IN THE DARK IN AN INCUBATOR WITHOUT A JOB!

Meanwhile, the MISO queue shows 16,712 of generation planned in the same area (p. 7), an admittedly conservative estimate. For a better quality version, click link above and look it up!

Do the math! Let’s see… 16,712 new – 6,000 “needed” = ??????????

FYI – for those of you not checking the comments:

MIKE BULL DID DISCLOSE!

Mike’s disclosure was in his letter — it was the Northfield News that edited out his disclosure that Governor Pawlenty signs his checks as Assistant Commissioner of Commerce for Renewable Energy and Advanced Technologies from his letter last week. Hey, Northfield News — little facts like that are important!

Carol, I did disclose to the Northfield News that I’m the Assistant Commissioner of Commerce for Renewable Energy and Advanced Technologies. I don’t know why they didn’t include that with my letter, but it wasn’t for lack of disclosure.

Also, I couldn’t figure out why Mike said that the Transmission Omnibus Bill from Hell “keeps the state on track to have 20 percent of the electric energy used in the state come from renewable energy sources by 2015.” That made NO sense at all to me, and he had this to say about that:

And you’re right, this bill has nothing to do with the Renewable Energy Standard that Aaron Peterson offered on the House floor. What I was referring to in my note to the paper is that, given: 1) the current amount of renewable energy supplied to Minnesotans; 2) the amount of renewable energy Xcel is required to provide to their customers; and 3) the amount of renewable energy that Minn utilities are expected to provide to their customers under the state’s Renewable Energy Objective, we’re already on track to have 20% of our electric energy generated by renewable sources by 2015.

Welcome back from vacation, Mike!!!

Today I had the opportunity and good fortune to meet Julie Risser! She’s the one who wrote the Letter to the Editor in this Wednesday’s Northfield News, cut and pasted below. She’d said in her letter that she’d be here for the Carleton 2005 reunion, and so we found some time to get acquainted today (anyone who writes a letter like that, as my “little brother” would say, “Must be some friend of Carol’s!”). It turns out she and I went to the same high school, Southwest in Minneapolis, where her father was a teacher. I only went there for a semester before transferring to the Central Magnet Program, and we’re nearly a generation apart, but maybe it’s our early background similarities that lead to our similar beliefs now. It sure isn’t our present lives — she’s an Edina stay-at-home mom who used to teach Art History at Carleton, needless to say, our lives are worlds apart, which we both find amusing.

Julie got into energy issues when one of her daughters came home from school and asked about acid rain, and she naively said, “Mommy can stop acid rain.” Since then, she’s focused on coal plants, is working on energy legislative issues with the League of Women Voters, and recently went to testify about mercury in our water at a federal hearing in Chicago. Her daughters Helen and Allison are featured a Sierra Club handout on mercury called The Bush Administration Serves up Mercury to Women and Children. Here’s a version of it used in Kentucky, sans the photo of the Risser daughters!

Here’s her Northfield News Letter to the Editor:

Reader questions bill

To the editor:

As a Carleton alum planning on attending reunion weekend; as a parent who knows energy legislation is personal because it effects our economy, air quality, water quality, and even ability of our children to learn; and as a concerned citizen who traveled to Chicago to testify for preservation of the Clean Air Act, I took interest a letter printed in June 11’s paper. The writer’s position that the 2005 Omnibus Energy bill is a reflection of the governor’s “guiding energy policies of promoting reliable, low-cost energy from environmentally superior sources” left me impressed with adjective selection — but unconvinced; indeed the primary argument offered is superficial: a lot of elected officials and some special interests liked it.

I so want to believe that the Omnibus Energy bill will serve Minnesota wind farmers well. Yes, the community-based Economic Development (CBED) tariff will set a favorable higher initial price for community-owned wind projects, but there is nothing in the legislation that requires utilities to purchase this electricity. The writer contends the Omnibus Energy bill “keeps the state on track to have 20 percent of electric energy used in the state come from renewable energy sources by 2015.” Most people, especially in Northfield where wind turbines exist, probably thought this meant energy from Minnesota wind farms. Think again. There is no requirement that the renewable energy be produced here in Minnesota. There is no Renewable Energy Standard in this bill, only the 2001 optional “objective.”

This legislation also allows for “streamlining” of the transmission line approval process for energy sources that are for renewable generation, but also for generation that is not renewable. It’s a huge win for the utility companies and coal interests in the Dakotas that will use Minnesota transmission and deposit mercury in Minnesota waters. That is not a win for Minnesotans.

The writer leaves readers with the impression that Rep. Cox and Gov. Pawlenty did well by Minnesotans when they approved this legislation. If Cox and Pawlenty are serious about Minnesota’s economic and environmental sustainability, they would have supported the Renewable Energy Standard (RES). Northfielders should know that Cox voted against RES and Pawlenty did nothing to advance it. This bill should have closed the loophole allowing coal gasification plants to tap the State’s Renewable Energy Fund, $10 million that was then denied to legitimate renewable energy projects, and it should have revoked Excelsior Energy’s exemption from Certificate of Need and revoked Excelsior’s power of eminent domain. The fact that none of these things got done and because coal interests benefit from the Omnibus Energy bill indicates that legislators care more about Western mining interests and out-of-state wind interests than Minnesota wind farmers and economic development, our health, or our waters’ purity.

Julie Risser
Edina

Oh, Mikey, I remember when you used to publicly disclose who your boss was! Don’t you think it’s important, if you write a letter in the Northfield News about energy policy as “another sucker for Ray,” that the readers know you’re Governor Pawlenty’s Boy? From the Commerce Dept., an Executive agency, you moved over to the Governor’s office and spent this legislative session as the Governor’s in-house staff energy wonk, and that since the end of last month, you’re now Pawlenty’s Assistant Commissioner of Renewable Energy and Technology!

A week or two ago, I wrote a Northfield News Guest Column:

Mike made a couple comments here on this blog, scroll down to find them, and I cut and pasted one as its own post to make sure his comment was aired. I enjoy a worthy adversary and a few rounds in the ring! Here we go again!

Here’s the Letter to the Editor that Mike Bull, Governor Pawlenty’s Assistant Commissioner of Renewable Energy and Technology, wrote in the Northfield News, published in today’s paper:

Addressing misguided criticism

Community activists provide an important voice in policy debates at the state Capitol. However, a recent letter writer is misguided in their criticism of the 2005 Omnibus Energy bill and of Rep. Ray Cox for his support for that bill, (“Transmission bill is policy disaster,” June 1, 2005).

The 2005 Omnibus Energy bill reflects the governor’s guiding energy policies of promoting reliable, low-cost energy from environmentally superior sources; supports the development of community-based wind projects; provides incentives for utilities to build needed transmission facilities (both for reliability and renewable energy development); and keeps the state on track to have 20 percent of the electric energy used in the state come from renewable energy sources by 2015.

This consensus legislation was the result of a broad and deep coalition of environmentalists, utilities, business leaders, renewable energy developers, community wind activists, the Minnesota Department of Commerce and the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office. In my 10 years at the Capitol working on energy legislation, I have never seen a coalition of this depth, breadth and commitment for such an important and far-reaching piece of legislation.

The vote on the House and Senate floors reflected that consensus — the bill passed the DFL-controlled Senate 62-0, and the Republican-controlled House 131-2.

Rep. Cox was rightly one of the 131 House members that voted for the legislation. Gov. Pawlenty proudly signed the bill with environmental and energy leaders from both parties and both legislative bodies standing with him.

Mike Bull
Northfield

——————————————–

DISCLOSE, MIKE, DISCLOSE! Is this YOUR opinion, or Timmy’s? Is it part of your job to be a hired gun to finesse Ray Cox’s PR problems?

Mike and I both know that there’s a lot more to this bill than what we’ve said publicly. And we both know that this bill has nothing to do with the Renewable Energy Standard, which is not a part of this bill. Yes, Mike, we do need to have coffee soon and have a chat — think Blue Monday has enough room for the boxing ring?

p.s. As you recall, the RES amendment did not pass and is NOT part of the Transmission Omnibus Bill From Hell. Anyway, here’s what Ray had to say about his vote against the Renewable Energy Standard:

We had a bit of a ‘dust-off’ over an amendment from Rep. Aaron Peterson regarding a Renewable Energy Standard. It proposed requiring utility companies to include 20% of their energy from renewable sources by the year 2020. While this sounds like something I could support, I did not do so because I did not want to jeoprodize the passage of SF 1368.

That’s a telling vote that the League of Conservation Voters and the Sierra Club ought to use on their legislative scorecards!

Mike Bull, now back to Dept. of Commerce as Assistant Commissioner for Renewable Energy and Advanced Technologies (so he says), formerly of House Research and attorney for House Regulated Industries Committee for eons, formerly of Commerce (formerly of EQB too? I’m forgetting, the door was spinning so fast for a while there), and until the sesion ended, in … gulp… Gov. Pawlenty’s office… sigh… and the guy behind all the good ethanol policy, and Northfield resident, had this to say about my comments on SF1368 and its passage:

Carol — the Attorney General supported passage of the 2005 Omnibus Energy bill in all respects. The only issue the AG had with the bill dealt with the formation of transco’s. Ron Giteck of the AG’s office worked with the utilities and developed the language that was included in the final bill, which the AG then supported. The transco language doesn’t give away any state authority — under current law, the PUC arguably has all the authority it needs to approve a transco petition, but has no statutory guidance as to what to look for in a transco. The 2005 legislation establishes the public interest criteria and considerations by which the PUC should review a petition for formation of a transco.

OVERLAND’S FULL DISCLOSURE: I THINK HATCH SHOULD BE GOVERNOR
Here’s a photo from the 2002 Bly campaign:

Hatch’s campaign manager was a K-9 officer who got along famously with my Shep.

OVERLAND’S REPLY TO BULL:

Mikey, you know as well as I do that the PUC’s never seen a utility proposal it didn’t like! I notice your qualified language! (“arguably”) Yes, you’re right, at the end of the day, the A.G.’s office “supported the transmission bill.” That support was a compromise begun in late April, after MUCH testimony from the A.G.’s office against the bill. I’m betting this was a decision on expenditure of political capital, looking forward to another run for Pawlenty’s job (YOUR boss), based in part on “the Dept.” (Gov’s?) adoption of the WOW TRANSLink deal/transmission agenda in it’s bill, based in part on movement forward of this awful bill due to lack of funded resistance, based in part on the enviro sell-out and promotion of this bill, and after the A.G.’s unwillingness to invest in active vociferous opposition at the House stage and waiting too long and doing too little, too late in the Senate, dumping it in Sen. Ellen Anderson’s lap — that’s grossly unfair. Yup, the party line is that “the A.G.’s office supported the transmission bill.” The press wasn’t at Hatch’s Belle Plaine 25B appearance in April so his comments aren’t on the record, nor are the various conversations I was privy to about this transmission bill mess. The official party line makes me sick — this was an issue where there should have been no compromise. This is the 2005 issue that required a backbone and cajones of steel. Oh well… Where’s the leadership? We’re not going to see the impacts of this bill for a while, but when we do, we’re going to have a hard time undoing it — if we can. Mike Hatch could have stopped this bill and didn’t. I can remember when Mike Hatch thought Xcel’s CEO should go… when he wanted to protect Minnesota ratepayers from NRG… when he opposed TRANSLink… sigh…