Legalectric

A vicious incestuous cycle, in, out and spread it around, keep it in the family. I was catching up on a few things and had an urge again to look up the Joyce Foundation, the Form 990s it files with the IRS. To do that, go to www.guidestar.org and register (free, hassle free and spam free), and then plug in the name of whatever organization you’re looking for. You might have to wade through a few, or scratch you head, like when the supposedly independent “Wind on the Wires” shows up as “Izaak Walton League” in Gaithersburg, and Beth Soholt is staff of Waltons (but we knew that…).

The Joyce Foundation Mission Statement:

The Joyce Foundation supports efforts to protect the natural environment of the Great Lakes, to reduce poverty and violence in the region, and to ensure that its people have access to good schools, decent jobs, and a diverse and thriving culture. We are especially interested in improving public policies, because public systems such as education and welfare directly affect the lives of so many people, and because public policies help shape private sector decisions about jobs, the environment, and the health of our communities. To ensure that public policies truly reflect public rather than private interests, we support efforts to reform the system of financing election campaigns.

The Joyce 2006 990 is too big to upload here (2006 is the most recent I could find). But, it’s worth a look-see, in one hand, out the other, supporting, promoting coal gasification through so-called “environmental” non-profits, building up IGCC, and investing in IGCC technology companies, coal companies, rail coal transport, developing the CO2 market, keeping coal alive and profiting from it and handing out some of those profits to “enviros” to keep the evil cycle going.

In addition to the ill-conceived grants way below, here are a few of the coal connected companies where they invested and sold stocks in 2006. A very interesting pattern of promotion of IGCC while investing in the owners/developers of IGCC technology, i.e., ConocoPhillips and ChevronTexaco, and investments in utilities proposing IGCC … and then there’s their huge takings in COAL! Whew… and think about the dollars made in comparison of the whole. See for yourself, look it up and gawk:

Alpha Natural Reserves

American Electric Power

Burlington Northern Santa Fe

ChevronTexaco (returns similar to Conoco Phillips, below)

Conoco Phillips (this one is noteworthy – 4382 shares for $97k, sold for $294k; 5700 shares for $112k sold for $385k; 100 shares for $1.9k sold for $6.4k; 6400 shares for $170k sold for $434k; 2500 shares for $76k sold for $157k; 2200 shares for $63k sold for $139; )

Dominion Resources

Duke Energy

El Paso Electric

Entergy Corp

Foundation Coal Holdings (this one is startling, lots of October, 2005 purchases, sold the following February for a 25% profit!)

Freightcar America (coal cars!)(doubled their money in 6-8 months)

Wabtech (railroad equipment)

Wesco (Westinghouse)

Lots of oil & gas related ones too:

Allis Chalmers Energy

Anadarko Petroleum

Basic Energy Services

Bronco Drilling

Carizzo Oil & Gas

Comstock Resources

Delek

Dresser Rand

Golar LNG

Gulfport Energy Corp

Hornbeck Offshore Services

Hercules Offshore

Intercontinental Exchange

Interoil Corp

Linn Energy

Natco Group

NGas Resources

Oceaneering International

Oil States International

RPC Incorporated

Superior Energy Services

Tetra Technologies

Ultra Clean Holdings

And Chaparral Steel, acquired by Gerdau Ameristeel, an Intervenor in the Mesaba docket…

Cleveland Cliffs – mining, the ones that owned the original site proposed for Mesaba in Hoyt Lakes…

Greenhill, which over 6 months made them 25-30% and more… they did that TXU deal

Does Emerson Electric count?

And for the record, they took a big hit when they selling a lot of Pfizer!

I’ve been watching them for a while, which they know and they watch me too (they’re not thick as a Brick, they just hired one). I regularly linked to their press release of grants to “environmental” organizations to SUPPORT and PROMOTE coal gasification, and for some reason they took it down (yes, of course I saved it, and even entered it in the record in the Mesaba PPA docket). To get an idea of these grants, LOTS of bucks

GO HERE

and choose category “Environment” and subcategory “Climate Change and Coal” and look at that big long list and look at how many are for promotion of IGCC. Here’re the ones that I think are most problematic, directly related to IGCC:

Belden Russonello & Stewart
To assess public attitudes in the Midwest about energy and environmental issues, especially coal.
Washington, DC $212,000
1 year 2006

Clean Air Task Force Inc.
To support a delegation of Midwest policy makers, industry representatives, and environmental groups to visit European coal gasification projects and meet with European counterparts.
Boston, MA $55,000
1 yr. 2007

Clean Air Task Force Inc.
To retain local counsel and technical experts to appear in the licensing hearings for a proposed IGCC project.
Boston, MA $60,000
1 yr. 2007

Clean Air Task Force Inc.
To promote Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle for the next generation of coal plants in the upper Midwest.
Boston, MA $787,500
21 mos. 2006

Clean Wisconsin Inc.
To oppose conventional coal plants proposed in Wisconsin and promoting coal gasification with sequestration as an alternative. The Wisconsin Citizens Utility Board would be a partner in the intervention and campaign.
Madison, WI $500,000
1 year 2006

Congressional Research Service
For a series of expert sessions to inform Congress on alternative long-term U.S. energy policies.
Washington, DC $539,000
3 yrs. 2007

Council of State Governments
To organize and convene a summit on energy and global warming for midwestern governors.
Lexington, KY $157,162
1 yr. 2007

CUB Consumer Education and Research Fund
To promote policies that would hasten the development of IGCC technologies in Illinois.
Chicago, IL $75,000
1 yr. 2007

CUB Consumer Education and Research Fund
To promote new policies supporting coal gasification and carbon sequestration for new electric generation in Illinois.
Chicago, IL $75,000
1 year 2006

Energy Center of Wisconsin Inc.
For planning and convening the Energy Transition 2050 Conference in Chicago.
Madison, WI $100,000
1 yr. 2007

Energy Foundation
For continued support of a fund used to underwrite smaller-scale efforts to contest the licensing of conventional coal plants in the Midwest.
San Francisco, CA$100,000
1 yr. 2007

Energy Foundation
To support smaller-scale efforts to contest the licensing of conventional coal plants in the Midwest.
San Francisco, CA$100,000
1 year 2006

Great Plains Institute for Sustainable Development
To support the efforts of its Coal Gasification Working Group.
Minneapolis, MN $437,500
21 mos. 2006

Great Plains Institute for Sustainable Development Inc.
To brief Midwest lawmakers and regulators about how advanced coal technologies are currently deployed in Europe and encourage their support for similar adoption here.
Minneapolis, MN $99,400
1 yr. 2007

Illinois Environmental Council Education Fund
To continue organizing support for the Great Lakes compact and clean energy policies in Illinois, and to broaden and strengthen its coalition.
Springfield, IL $175,000
2 yrs. 2007

Izaak Walton League of America Inc.
To continue to encourage the deployment of advanced coal generation in Minnesota and to promote policies that enable and encourage carbon capture and storage.
St. Paul, MN $350,000
2 yrs. 2007

Izaak Walton League of America Inc.
To support intervention in the licensing hearings for the Big Stone II power plant in South Dakota and Minnesota.
St. Paul, MN $300,000
1 year 2006

Michigan Environmental Council
To persuade regulators, utilities and power plant developers in Michigan that any new coal plants should be able to use the latest technologies for capturing and storing carbon emissions.
Lansing, MI $87,500
21 mos. 2006

Minnesotans for An Energy Efficient Economy
To establish a media center to provide communications tools and services to regional and national organizations working on energy issues.
St. Paul, MN $300,000
2 yrs. 2007

National Wildlife Federation
To build support in Indiana and Michigan for coal gasification as an alternative toconventional coal-burning power plants. Indiana Wildlife Federation and Michigan United Conservation Clubs would be partners in this effort.
Reston, VA $122,700
21 mos. 2006

Natural Resources Defense Council Inc.
For its efforts to oppose the construction of new conventional coal plants and promote alternative plants using coal gasification with carbon sequestration.
New York, NY $437,500
21 mos. 2006

Ohio Environmental Council
To support its ongoing efforts to promote Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle in Ohio and to oppose the permitting of a conventional coal plant proposed by AMP-Ohio, a municipal utility consortium.
Columbus, OH $113,750
21 mos. 2006

Resources for the Future Inc.
To conduct a quantitative assessment of the risks to shareholders and electric utility ratepayers of investing in various coal combustion technologies.
Washington, DC $75,000
1 year 2006

Rockefeller Family Fund
To support the Renewable Energy Alignment Mapping Project.
New York $50,000
1 yr. 20007

Rockefeller Family Fund
To support ongoing coal advocacy activities of the Renewable Energy Alignment Mapping Project.
New York, NY $50,000
1 year 2006

University of Wisconsin-Madison Center on Wisconsin Strategy
To build support among labor leaders in Wisconsin and other Midwest states for coal gasification as an alternative to conventional coal power plants.
Madison $175,000
21 mos. 2006

Where do they get these ideas? Well, they certainly are investing where their money is, both ways.

Try this doozy of a report, “The Sure Way to get Entrenched in Coal” or “How to Live in Coal Denial.” It’s enough to gag a polar bear:

Design to Win: Philanthropy’s Role in the Fight Against Global Warming

Once more with feeling… pass the barf bag!

A cohort has also been looking at these counterproductive “investments” to further coal, and his take:

Related to the issue of how foundations are responding to coal, the study “Design to Win: Philanthropy’s Role in the Fight Against Global Warming” is well worth reading. It was sponsored by a number of key foundations: Oak, Energy, Packard, Doris Duke, Google, Joyce, and Hewlett. Advisors: Hawkins, Socolow, and many other prominent figures. Authors: California Environment Associates and Stockholm Environment Institute. Some of the central analysis on coal is plain ridiculous. For example, one of its three key strategies for “dethroning king coal” is this: “Minimize the need for coal-fired power plants by encouraging upgrades in existing coal plants with ultra/supercritial technologyies and accelerating the retirement of older, less efficient plants.” (This is the rationale for building power plants like Tata Ultra Mega.)

There’s this text on CCS, which I find astonishing in its unfounded optimism about CCS becoming a big factor within the next two decades and its unfounded pessimism about other measures like solar, wind, and efficiency improvements being significant in the same time period:

“Even under the sunniest scenarios, efficiency gains and expanded use of alternative energy sources won’t displace enough coal in the next two decades to forestall catastrophic climate change, so we must find a way to separate CO2 emissions from coal plants and store them beneath the earth.”

I think the truth of the matter is the exact opposite. Efficiency is our big hope, not CCS. On CCS, Greenpeace and EPRI agree that the onset of commercial application will be in the post-2020 timeframe. And everybody agrees (as demonstrated by the dramatic decline in per capita electricity use in California compared to the US as a whole as a result of straightforward state and utility programs over the past twenty years) that if there is one thing that really could put a huge dent in coal beginning right away, it’s efficiency gains. Why did the eminently qualified authors of this study poo-poo efficiency and alternatives and instead throw their hopes into CCS?

If you look at the actual giving of the big foundations, I think you’ll find them to be right in line with these priorities, which I think are misguided.

In his 4/14/08 letter to Nevada Governor Gibbons, James Hansen writes: “… the point is this: oil will not determine future climate change. Coal will.” It’s important that the strategy on coal emphasize the right way forward: nothing less than a deliberate, orderly phase down of all coal plants in the next twenty years. Foundations should set this as a clear goal, not holding out false hopes for near-term CCS or nonsensical “upgrading” to “supercritical” or other more efficient technologies. Those things amount to distractions at best and fig leafs for continued power plants building at worst. They should not be the goal of philanthropy.

Obama SuperNOT! He’s for IGCC:

(where did that flyer go with the coal barges???)

Obama SuperNOT!  He’s for transmission:

Q: So you are saying there’s a role for federal dollars, federal money, in creating transmission lines to get the wind power out of this region?

A: There is no doubt. That should be part of a comprehensive energy strategy.

From Obama: Federal role in windpower – the Sioux Falls Argus Leader

The same goes for Clinton and her pet IGCC project in New York, and then there’s McCain and Pawlenty the Green Chameleon, or is it Governor Greenwash?  Pawlenty by any other name would stink as bad…

What to do.  How many emails can we send to these campaigns in the next few months?

This letter below, from Heartland Consumers Power District, one of the Big Stone partners, came over the wire earlier today. They are NOT happy with the ALJs’ Recommendation of DENIAL in that docket.

ALJs Recommendation — Denial of Certificate of Need & Routing Permits

So I guess they decided to let the world know, or at least let the PUC know, with this missive:

Heartland letter to the PUC

Then, three minutes later, another email:

Kathie Lewis would like to recall the message “Heartland MNPUC Letter.”

SNORT!!!  I’ll be she would…

… oh yes you did! Well, folks, sit down… When Mike Bull got in bed with Pawlenty, I thought that he’d gone to the dark side… but now, oh, my, Wind on the Wires? WOW! OH MY DOG!

May 15, 2008

Wind on the Wires Completes Key Hire of Regional Policy Manager

Wind on the Wires is pleased to announce the addition of a Regional Policy Manager to its staff.

Mike Bull, Deputy Director of the Minnesota Office of Energy Security will join the WOW staff on June 11, 2008 as Regional Policy Manager. Mike will focus on advancing wind power and transmission issues across Wind on the Wires 10 state footprint in the Midwest.

Mike has more than 15 years working on energy issues under Governors Tim Pawlenty and Jesse Ventura, and in the Office of Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch. Mike has negotiated and passed state legislation dealing with transmission infrastructure development, wind permitting and siting procedures, and community energy development.

Mike was also a lead negotiator for Governor Pawlenty in the effort that Governor Pawlenty co-chaired with Governor Jim Doyle of Wisconsin, to develop the landmark Midwest Governors Association Energy Security & Climate Stewardship platform announced in the fall of 2007. In that role Mike worked intensively with representatives of Governors in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota. In 2007 and 2008, Mike helped advise Governor Pawlenty in the development and implementation of the Governor’s National Governors Association initiative “Securing a Clean Energy Future” and has been working on Governor Pawlenty’s behalf with representatives from Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico to help establish the Governors Windpower Coalition.

Mike has also held non-partisan senior policy positions at the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission and in both bodies of the Minnesota Legislature. He has graduate degrees in Law and Public Policy from the University of Minnesota.

Please help us welcome Mike Bull to the WOW staff.

You can send him a sympathy card at this address:

Mike Bull

Wind on the Wires

1619 Dayton Ave., Suite 203

St. Paul, MN 55104

As he says, “Think of it… we’ll still be able to have so much fun.”  And yes, there’s all those Information Requests I sent to WOW, and hey, like WOW, maybe I should subpoena him to testify in CapX!!!

.

Something we all know, but that the St. Paul Port Authority wants to avoid:

The RCrAP group is subject to Open Meeting Law

HUH? Well, the RCrAP is the RockTenn Community Advisory Panel, assembled under the umbrella of the St. Paul Port Authority.

You can read the St. Paul Port Authority’s “Energy Independent Newsletter” here:

March-April 2008 Newsletter – SPPA

The Port Authority is using this committee as a way to get “community” buy-in to a garbage burner that the community doesn’t want.  If you don’t think it’s a garbage burner they’ve got in mind, read the Foth report:

Here’s the Foth Report

They’ve been trying to make Rock-Tenn happen, and to make it happen the way they want it to.  Toward this end, they’ve been having discussions over a private list-serve, not open to the public, despite calls for them to do so, and despite statements reminding them that they’re subject to Open Meeting Law. Their response? A loud and arrogant “OPEN MEETING LAW DOES NOT APPLY.”

Well, they’re wrong. So says the Minnesota Department of Administration, Opinion 08-007 — this is an opinion issued to the Port Authority after they specifically asked whether Open Meeting Law applies:

Opinion 08-007 – Open Meeting Law applies to RCAP

Here it is in its entirety, it’s too good to miss a word:

Facts and Procedural History:
On March 17, 2008, IPAD received a letter, dated March 14, 2008, from Lorrie Louder on behalf of the Rock Tenn Community Advisory Panel (RCAP). In her letter, Ms. Louder asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion whether RCAP was subject to the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D. Ms. Louder submitted the $200.00 fee required by section 13.072. In a letter to Ms. Louder dated March 20, 2008, IPAD requested additional information and clarification. Clarification was provided by Ms. Louder in a letter dated April 14, 2008, and received by IPAD on April 17, 2008.

A summary of the facts as presented by Ms. Louder is as follows.

In 2007, the Saint Paul Port Authority (SPPA) was provided with a one-time grant for a study related to a steam and electrical energy facility for Rock Tenn, a paper recycling facility in Saint Paul. As part of the grant, SPPA is required to convene a citizen’s advisory committee to advise on the scope of the study. This citizen’s advisory committee is composed of members recommended by four different district councils in Saint Paul and must meet regularly.

According to Ms. Louder, this committee is known as RCAP and has developed a consensus process using a facilitator so there is no chair of RCAP.

Issue:
Based on Ms. Louder’s opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:

Is the Rock Tenn Community Advisory Panel subject to the requirements of the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D?

Discussion:
To assist in the analysis of whether RCAP is subject to the Open Meeting Law (OML), Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, some background is helpful.

There are several purposes for the OML. The Minnesota Supreme Court stated in Prior Lake American v. Mader, 642 N.W.2d 729 (Minn. 2002) that:

The Open Meeting Law serves several purposes:

(1) “to prohibit actions being taken at a secret meeting where it is impossible for the interested public to become fully informed concerning [public bodies’] decisions or to detect improper influences;” (2) “to assure the public’s right to be informed;” and (3) “to afford the public an opportunity to present its views to the [public body].” St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. Dist. 742 Cmty. Schs., 332 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Minn. 1983)(citations omitted). These purposes are deeply rooted in the fundamental proposition that a well-informed populace is essential to the vitality of our democratic form of government. (footnote omitted)

Because the Open Meeting Law was enacted for the public benefit, we construe it in favor of public access. State by Archabal v. County of Hennepin, 505 N.W.2d 294, 297 (Minn. 1993); see St. Cloud Newspapers, 332 N.W.2d at 6 (stating that the Open Meeting Law “will be liberally construed in order to protect the public’s right to full access to the decisionmaking process of public bodies”).

Prior Lake American at 735. With this background and the Court’s instruction to construe the law in favor of public access, the next step is to review the issue presented by RCAP.

Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01 lists the government organizations that are subject to the OML. These government organizations are referred to as “public bodies.” Subdivision 1 of this section states, in pertinent part:

All meetings, including executive sessions, must be open to the public: . . .

(c) of any
(1) committee,
. . .
of a public body;

According to 2007 Session Laws, Chapter 57, Article 2, Section 3, RCAP is a committee operating under the auspices of the SPPA. The study must do the following:

(1) assess the economic and technical feasibility of various fuel types to power the plant;
(2) provide a full description and analysis of each fuel type and their respective economic and noneconomic impacts;
(3) provide a full description and analysis of each fuel type and their respective environmental emissions, including carbon dioxide, and the cost of controlling those emissions that affect human health;
(4) describe public subsidies related to the production and use of each fuel type;
(5) describe potential energy efficiency improvement that can be made to the paper recycling operations and subsidies available for each improvement; and
(6) evaluate additional uses for the steam and electricity produced at the facility and the cost of infrastructure needed to implement the additional uses.

In addition, the Legislature also gave RCAP the authority to issue recommendations on these study topics that are separate from those presented by SPPA.

All of these functions are actions taken on behalf of citizens who will be impacted by the decisions that are made about providing energy to the Rock Tenn recycling operation. As stated by the Minnesota Supreme Court in the Prior Lake American case, these are the types of discussions that should occur in public and any decision should be made in public.

The next question then is whether the RCAP is a “public body” and so subject to the OML. The SPPA is a public corporation created in 1929. According to Minnesota Statutes, section 465.719, subdivision 9, public corporations created before May 31, 1997, cannot be exempted from the OML. As a committee of a public body, RCAP is subject to the OML.

Opinion:
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Ms. Louder raised is as follows:

The Rock Tenn Community Advisory Panel is subject to the requirements of the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D.

Signed:

Dana B. Badgerow
Commissioner

Dated: May 1, 2008

So, there you have it!