They’re recycling, and not in a good way.  Why is the STrib facilitating this?  Remember this from October?

Center of the American Experiment – Conflatulence!!

Here we go again, this time in the STrib:

The high cost of our failing wind policies

The two primary false arguments:

1) Wind is driving up ratepayer cost (it’s not, it’s the return on capital expenditures).

2) Clean Power Plan and renewable mandates aren’t lowering CO2 and are driving up rates (CPP and mandates only increase “renewables” and don’t cut CO2 production, it’s a percentage change, and using least cost generation.  Only reduction in burning will lower production of CO2).

3) High cost of electricity in Minnesota is connected to wind policies (When compared historically higher cost states like Illinois, yes, Minnesota’s rates are high, but it isn’t related to wind costs, wind is a least cost resource.  It IS related to the shift of electricity from serving a franchise area to a market based system, and the market has spoken. When electricity can be sold for more, and where utilities have transmission build-out from any Point A to any Point B, they will sell to highest bidder.  Higher priced markets will line up to buy our lower cost electricity and utilities will line up to sell it elsewhere rather than sell it for less to us, and we will have to pay the higher price to get electricity here.  That’s how a market works, Econ 1001. With wholesale market deregulated, and transmission lines built, we’ve got defacto deregulation.).

And a minor but very obvious false statement:

And the shortfall in summer wind production is being backstopped primarily by coal-fired electricity.

Coal runs constantly, as does nuclear, well almost, capacity factor of 80+.  But it’s natural gas, with its near-immediate ramping up that backs up wind, if generation is needed.  DOH!  Coal can’t get it up on command.

Why is the STrib printing this crap that is so patently false?

Here’s a good wallpaper to keep running, the MISO LMP map.

Check MISO’s real time LMP prices HERE!

See how Chicago area is cut out? That’s because it’s in PJM.

Check PJM’s real time LMP prices HERE!

Here’s what I’ve been able to find about MISO J407, the number provided by Xcel Energy in their 16-777 Resource Acquisition docket that included the Freeborn Wind project:

Xcel_Petition_201610-125953-02

And from Xcel’s Petition on interconnection (click for larger version):

And here’s what I could find from MISO:

miso-february-2015-initial-posting

20170117 IPTF Item 01f DPP Updates

20160714 IPTF Item 02 DPP Study Updates

GI-FeS-2014-DEC-J407-Report

GI DPP 2015 FEB West SIS PJM Addendum R2

There ya have it!

Carol,

You were one of the critical Americans who helped change the course of American history when my father was voted into office last November.

But now more than a year has gone by, and as the media’s attacks become increasingly nasty, the President needs to know – are you still on Team Trump?

Before 2017 comes to an end, my father is hoping to have your name in the books as a Sustaining Member of our movement to Make America Great Again!

Please contribute $1 to renew your Sustaining Membership for the 2017 year.

Please contribute $1 to renew your Sustaining Membership for the 2017 year.

Thank you,

Eric Trump

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

LOCK HIM UP!!!

My Letter to the Editor about misguided and ill-advised Ordinance #115 is in the RW Republican Eagle (bEagle), it’s posted below because it’s not online yet.

UPDATE: Posted online — Ordinance is ‘solution’ looking for a problem

NOTE: ORDINANCE #115 TAKEN OFF DECEMBER 11 COUNCIL MEETING. WON’T BE HEARD UNTIL AFTER JANUARY COUNCIL ANNUAL WORKSHOP… if ever…

Here’s a previous post on the Ordinance and the Council meeting:

Ordinance #115 – disruptions at Council meetings?

Monday night, the Council took up Ordinance #115, triggered by the recent Minnesota Supreme Court’s Hensel decision. That decision held that the law defining conduct that “disturbs an assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its character” as disorderly conduct was unconstitutional, “a serious overbreadth problem.” Here, the City has decided to consider an ordinance of its own with language that puts the City on the wrong side of the law. Why would the City want to do this?

The discussion was good – I’m grateful members raised Constitutional issues, the 1^st Amendment, and its broad definitions. One said “We’d instructed staff after we got information,” the City Attorney had been instructed to draft the ordinance. “We were asked to address this.” By whom? It’s not gone through committee process. The packet’s item 9B was a memo from Roger Pohlman, Chief of Police, requesting a Motion to introduce the Ordinance.  Councilor Hove noted that there haven’t been disruptions for years, since back when the Council met upstairs! Others, including the City Attorney, noted that in addition to city policy, there is applicable law. Only part of the disorderly conduct statute (Minn. Stat. 609.72) was held unconstitutional, and parts remain, including “engages in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others.”

Why use Council time on this non-issue, particularly where the City has policies in place regarding disruption? What was most concerning were Chief Pohlman’s reasons for requesting this ordinance.  First, he noted that police use of force practices limit what level of force may be used, and “if individual becomes passive, resistant” this ordinance was back up to use force to remove someone. He raised this issue of level of force twice. The other claimed justification was liability issues if someone claims injury when removed, that it’s “difficult to use policy to support our case.” This is an issue?

As Alan Muller was quoted in your article, “people disrupt meetings — people behave aggressively — when they feel that behaving politely and with restraint isn’t working.” Council President Biese cut off Muller’s statement just as he was finishing!  In my own experience, I’ve been shushed by Biese for objecting when my Ash Mining clients had no opportunity to speak before the Council approved that scheme. I’ve also been ordered removed from a St. Croix Falls/Taylors Falls joint Council meeting by then Mayor Lundgren for merely asking a question, raising a financial corruption issue, in a public comment period.  Lundgren was later charged and plead guilty to Theft and Misconduct in Office. Sometimes being heard requires standing up.

A primary outcome of the Red Wing Citizens Assembly was recognition that the City Council needs to be welcoming, transparent, that the Council must listen to citizens, and welcome public engagement. Ordinance #115 is a visible step in the opposite direction

Carol A. Overland

Also worth noting is the Editorial in the same paper, encouraging people to write — YES!

Column: Letters should make you question and think