Legalectric

… silly me — between the City of Red Wing and these clowns… and this dog… seems they’re mighty uncomfortable and working hard to quash public discussion! As a DFL buddy succinctly put it, “These people should be castrated, bullwhipped, tarred, feathered, ridden out of town on a rail and beaten senseless with a fat hardcover copy of ‘The Mass Psychology of Fascism.’ (Although the castration might in some cases seem redundant â?¦ it’s better to be sure.)” Yes, that’d be fun, but I prefer they keep showing their true colors and fear of vox populi! Ain’t the internet grand!!!

In the St.PPP today:

Lightning strikes power plant

Lightning struck a coal-fired power plant near Wausau Wednesday, prompting Wisconsin Public Service Corp. to ask customers in north-central and northern Wisconsin to conserve electricity.

Lightning struck Weston 3, one of several coal-fired units at the Weston plant, early Wednesday, Wisconsin Public Service Corp said. Also, a separate coal unit there is out of service because of a small coal fire in that unit’s pulverizer, WPS said.

That fire was contained and nobody was hurt, and that unit is expected to return to service today.

The Green Bay-based utility said it has interrupted service to large commercial industrial customers in the area. It urged customers in the Wausau, Merrill, Tomahawk, Minocqua and Rhinelander areas to take steps to reduce their energy use.

Utility spokeswoman Kelly Zagrzebski said the risk of power failures is slight, but that the appeal to conserve power was a precaution.

That utility and two Madison-based utilities asked for customers to reduce electricity use to help reduce demand across the Midwest power grid Tuesday afternoon.

More interesting/boring crap on the wired… seems that rather than offer a candidate who can walk and talk DFL progressive thought, the DFL whines anonymously that Risser’s candidacy is a Republican plot! Get a grip, folks! It’s time to take a look in the mirror!
Here, from the Daily Kos:

Greens Helping the GOP?

And admittedly cross-posted at Minnesota Campaign Report:

Greens Helping the GOP?

Whoever wrote this has obviously not checked out Andrew Borene’s site as carefully as they checked Risser’s! Take a look at www.andrewborene.com

Andrew says things like:

Health Care

I will work to maintain Minnesotaâ??s high quality of care while making healthcare coverage affordable for all Minnesotans. I will also work on behalf of an aging population that deserves access to affordable prescriptions. I support laws that respect individual healthcare decisions and protect doctors from frivolous lawsuits.

Ummmm… hello, notice that his concern is making “healthcare COVERAGE” affordable, and not making “HEALTHCARE” affordable? And then he adds this gem also from the insurance company and Republican playbook: “I support laws that respect individual healthcare decisions and protect doctors from frivolous lawsuits.” I found this so offensive I asked him to explain it and he couldn’t/wouldn’t. And then there’s his section on Energy — nonexistent.

So who is this saying, “I have full faith and confidence in Boreneâ??s ability to win in Edina,” and then calling him a “progressive?” It’s party politics spoken by a party operative mouthing party line. Try thinking critically, folks! It just might help you win elections!

Can anyone paying even a modicum of attention to politics not be aware of the problems of the DFL, a party running lame candidates in promising districts, running candidates who wouldn’t know a progressive though it if bit them in their DFL ass, a party with “leadership” too busy dirt-digging amongst its own to run an honest campaign? Well, after all, the DFL is the party that supports its Senator from Xcel who amended the Mesaba bill into the Prairie Island Bill for his employer Xcel! (and then he has to spoil it all by demonstrating he has a heart? Article HERE).

If the DFL spent half the time it spends on propaganda and manipulation on candidate development and education, it probably wouldn’t be in the fine mess it’s in.

Hmmmmmmmmmm… I wonder what VanHecke’s up to these days…

.

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!

.

“Dollar bill, dollar bill, dollar billlllll, it’s all about the dollar bill…”

or is it…

“Nothin’ makes ’em holler, like the almighty dollar…”

and the classic version here…

Ever notice that when they report quarterly financials they NEVER annualize the figure, only report a percentage down or up related to the prior quarter, or a year ago or whatever, it’s always this relative number that is meaningless… grrrrrrrrrrr…. anyway, here’s the scoop on Xcel’s quarterly profits, from the STrib:

Higher rates push up Xcel profits 18%

Xcel Energy Inc., owner of utilities in the Twin Cities and in Denver, said second-quarter profit rose 18 percent on higher rates for electricity and natural gas.

Net income rose to $98.3 million, or 24 cents a share after payment of preferred dividends, from $83.4 million, or 20 cents, a year earlier, the Minneapolis-based company said Tuesday. Sales rose to $2.07 billion from $2.06 billion. Xcel stock rose 16 cents, or 0.8 percent, to $20.20.

For the full year, the company repeated its forecast for per-share profit from continuing operations of $1.25 to $1.35. The company had profit from continuing operations of $1.20 in 2005.

Xcel raised Minnesota electric rates by $147 million in January. The rate increase is subject to refund as state regulators consider the utility’s pricing plan.

BLOOMBERG NEWS

2nd quarter FY2006, 6/30

2006 2005 % chg.

Revenue $2,073.9 $2,064.1 +0.5

Cont. ops. 97.9 77.7 +26.1

Disc. ops 0.3 5.7 -94.1

Income 98.3 83.4 +17.8

Net/cm 97.2 82.3 +18.1

Earn/share 0.24 0.20 +20.0

6 months

Revenue $4,962.0 $4,454.6 +11.4

Cont. ops. 247.7 202.1 +22.6

Disc. ops 1.8 2.7 -33.5

Income 249.6 204.9 +21.8

Net/cm 247.5 202.8 +22.0

Earn/share 0.60 0.49 +22.4

Figures in millions except for earnings per share.

©2006 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.

———————————————————–
And so juxtapose that with this (note it’s “alternative” and not “renewable” though “alternative” does fit better in this context):

The capitalist case for alternative energy

The history of capitalism suggests that a transition from today’s petroleum-based economy to a post-oil era is inevitable.
Isaac Cheifetz

« Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. And here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world. »

– George W. Bush, State of the Union address, Jan. 31, 2006

The price of petroleum continues to reach new highs, with crude oil prices hovering around $75 a barrel, and gasoline at the pump in the United States at $3 a gallon. The unrest in the Middle East threatens to push prices even higher.

It is difficult to imagine our modern economy without oil. For the past 125 years, fossil-fuel energy has been as American as apple pie. The automobile, airplane and much of our modern conveniences are enabled by petroleum-based products.

But from a historical perspective, shifts in energy and technology are inevitable. What is the capitalist case for seriously planning for a post-petroleum economy now?

â?¢ National security: Our reliance on a consistently available and reasonably priced supply is inherently risky. But the worldwide search for oil has a secondary negative impact.

Underdeveloped countries with sizable oil resources consistently react like vagabonds winning the lottery, or a decadent hotel heiress. None has leveraged oil wealth to become advanced industrial economies.

Of the international trouble spots, only North Korea is not directly or indirectly funded by petro-dollars. If oil was worth less, these countries might still be troublesome, but they’d be far less of a threat.

â?¢ True cost of oil: Despite today’s higher costs, U.S. oil is inexpensive compared with prices in most Western economies, and compared with historical U.S. prices in inflation-adjusted dollars. But the pump price does not include our indirect costs of militarily ensuring stability in oil producing regions. If the direct and indirect costs of oil from unstable regions were reflected in consumer prices, many alternative energy sources would become more cost effective.

â?¢ The environmental business case: There is a sound business case for being environmentally proactive. The rising expectations of middle-class consumers worldwide are a potential strain on resources, but a certain opportunity.

The essence of capitalism is looking forward, not fighting to maintain the status quo. Capitalism’s success in spurring economic growth is rooted in “creative destruction,” as described by economist Joseph Schumpeter.

The success of Toyota and Honda versus troubled General Motors and Ford is partly attributable to the Japanese firms’ aiming for future markets (subcompacts in the 1970’s, hybrids in the present), while the U.S. firms stubbornly focused on successful profitable products (high-margin gas guzzlers in both eras), and fought attempts to mandate higher mileage standards.

What are the building blocks of the path toward a post-petrol future?

â?¢ Market driven: Government cannot effectively mandate disruptive shifts to energy sources of the future. But it can play a leading role by seeding the landscape, as it did during the Cold War era by funding basic research, which became the foundation of Silicon Valley.

â?¢ Forward looking: Subsidize future technologies, not current political dilemmas. Congressional hearings considering using the Strategic Oil Reserve to stabilize gas prices, or investigating oil company “windfall” profits, are distractions, not solutions.

â?¢ Non-ideological: Both liberals and conservatives must become more rigorous yet flexible in their approach to energy. For the right, glorifying SUV’s as a symbol of liberty is dangerous in an era when we are threatened by oil-producing countries that fund a range of toxic societies and ideologies worldwide. For the left, serious consideration of unpalatable alternatives like nuclear energy and Alaska drilling should be part of the solution.

â?¢ Evolutionary alternatives: It is impossible to predict tomorrow’s energy efficiencies precisely. But a variety of existing technologies have the potential to reduce oil consumption incrementally, and together, they can put us on the path to the post-oil era. Ethanol is one obvious example. And cellulosic ethanol — made not from corn but from carbon-based waste products such as switchgrass, sewage sludge and wood chips — is attracting a lot of investor attention.

â?¢ Revolutionary alternatives: Future generations will consider us wise if we invest additional billions now in basic research, pursuing radical advances in safer nuclear energy production and disposal, cold fusion, batteries, and solar, wind and water-driven energy.

About 150 years ago, the United States was a rapidly growing economic and social force, in the era when coal and whale oil were the energy foundations of our economy, and petroleum was considered nearly worthless. In 150 years, our energy sources probably will make oil the curiosity that whale oil is today.Isaac Cheifetz is a Minneapolis-based executive recruiter who helps companies hire technology-savvy senior executives. His Commerce Chain column focuses on best practices, leadership and trends in business technology. He can be reached at www.opentechnologies.com.

©2006 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.