Legalectric

The Public Utilities Commission has eFiled its Briefing Papers regarding Association of Freeborn County Landowners’ Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet:

There were some bizarre notions expressed. Here’s one:

Over 380 signatures were submitted by Association of Freeborn County Landowners, and yet THIS?!?!

So today, on behalf of Association of Freeborn County Landowners, I eFiled a review of those Staff Briefing Papers:

Bottom line:

Come on out for the show:

Public Utilities Commission

February 6, 2020 @ 9:30 a.m.

121 – 7th Place East, Suite 350

St. Paul, MN 55101

Here’s the bill everyone’s talking about:

Comments? It’s important to let them know what you think. Here’s the contact info for the Senate Energy Committee (LINKED HERE).

In last week’s Rochester Post Bulletin, about the Senate Energy and Utilities Finance and Policy Committee meeting in Rochester:

Senators take heat on waste-burning energy

• John Molseed jmolseed@postbulletin.com
• Jan 15, 2020

Something that drives me crazy — posting things without the underlying links. I’m seeing so many posts about slashing existing water rules and release of new dreadful rules that allow pollution, but there are no links to the actual rules they’ve trotted out. So I added to my Federal Register alert, still nothing. OK, and now yesterday and today there’s another wave of posts about it, that something was released, and still no links. Digging and digging here, and found it.

Final Rule: The Navigable Waters Protection Rule: Definition of “Waters of the United States” pre-publication version

Water’s not my area, admittedly I don’t know much about it. That new rule, following on the repeal, is on the EPA website (what’s left of it).

There’s the “Clean Water Act” which I hear LOUDLY is being decimated. I’ve found the “new” rule is rooted in this administration’s objections to the 2015 expanded definition of “navigable waters” in the Clean Water Rule.

Intention to Review and Rescind or Revise the Clean Water Rule (Federal Register)

And so it goes… EPA and Army Repeal the 2015 Definition of “waters of the United States” oh, yeah, they did that..

Trump Administration Rolls Back Clean Water Protections

The focus is on discharging into streams and wetlands, well, correction, the focus is on Trump administration slashing, eliminating rules, to ALLOW discharging into streams and wetland.

So what happened yesterday, what I’ve been looking for, is that they signed a new “Navigable Waters Protection Rule,” which is really one of those Orwellian things, name is just the opposite of what it does, because it changes the definition of waters to be protected, eliminates protections, and allows formerly waters that were protected to now be open season for pollution. Here’s the final “pre-publication” rule (which is why I’ve not been able to find it, not published yet, not published in FR Public Inspection yet either). Here it is, once more with feeling:

Final Rule: The Navigable Waters Protection Rule: Definition of “Waters of the United States” pre-publication version

There’s also this, a different link: The Navigable Waters Protection Rule: Definition of “Waters of the United States” – pre-publication version (PDF)(340 pp, 2 MB)

Check out this “Federalism Consultation” section from EPA page, a Clinton Administration E.O. that’s to address unfunded mandates and consult with states where federal changes can affect states (from EPA site):

Federalism Consultation – Consistent with E.O. 13132, Federalism, the EPA, Department of Army, and the Army Corps of Engineers consulted with state and local government officials, or their representative national organization, while developing a revised definition of “waters of the United States.”

• Federalism consultation letters and presentation materials
• Final summary of Federalism consultation
• Letter to the Governors Soliciting Input on Defining “Waters of the United States”

And public comments on this rule change were posted to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0149 and can be found here (from EPA site).

It’s similar to the way the Minnesota Senate DRAFT 5558-6 would change the definitions of “renewable energy” to incorporate burning garbage and nuclear as “renewable” cutting regulatory authority.

Last night in Performing Arts Center, Westonka H.S., Sen. Osmek held the second Senate Energy Committee meeting, taking testimony and discussing the bill. Good grief, burning garbage is RENEWABLE?!?! Eliminate the new nuclear prohibition?!?! CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE!?!?!?! Where on earth do these ideas come from? Lobbyists paid by who?

They put together a list of testifiers. This meeting’s list included TWO who had testified in Rochester! I spoke up and objected to allowing those two to testify before others who had not testified could, and near the end of testimony one was crossed off, BUT, well, guess who was second to the bottom, despite having requested to be put on list 8 days prior in Rochester, and didn’t get to testify.

For the first hearing, they put the three regular folks at the very bottom of the list, those not affiliated with an organization, those NOT paid to show up in suits and testify, and at the outset at Westonka last night, Osmek said, at least twice, “we may not get through the list.” They did in Rochester.

And at the outset of last night’s meeting, he again said, “we may not get through the list” and he limited testimony to 30 minutes total, but didn’t put any limit on individual testimony. AND he said, “we didn’t get through the list in Rochester.” FALSE, you DID get through the list in Rochester. Why say that? Prelude to a dis…

They’re talking about “carbon capture and storage,” “CCS” as if it’s real. It is not. No one else in the room has the knowledge and direct experience working on a project proposing carbon capture that I have, and no one else in the room had signed the non-disclosure agreement in the Excelsior Energy Mesaba Project and knows the details of cost and energy loss. Most of the Senators on that committee weren’t even around during the Mesaba Project, and I do not recall a single one of them weighing in on that boondoggle project. So what all do they know about it? Do they know only what paid toadies are telling them? Do some research! We do not need to reinvent the wheel, and folks, this is rock science, not rocket science.

We went through this “carbon capture” nonsense on the Excelsior Energy Mesaba Project, where it was talked about a lot, but wasn’t part of the actual project, and then, when it was clear the project Power Purchase Agreement “PPA” was tanking, SURPRISE, they popped in a “Plan” at the last minute, in Rebuttal testimony:

Suddenly, a Plan for Carbon Capture and Sequestration
October 19th, 2006

For sure it was utter bullshit, and not enough to save the day and get that PPA through. Here it is:

From MCGPs Initial Brief in Mesaba Project PPA docket (M-05-1993), but first the full brief, the CCS pages are 22-24, with references:

And the section on the Excelsior Energy’s Mesaba Project bogus “Plan for Carbon Capture and Sequestration”

Well DOH! What’s changed since then? Only a large funding of “research” and a larger funding scheme of promotion, a la Great Plains Institute, etc.,

… but carbon capture and storage is no more doable, either in percentage of capture feasible, or in potential for creating seismic activity and earthquakes, well, there is more evidence now that pumping gas into the earth DOES create earthquakes. It’s even made it into corporate news media, REAL NEWS from 2013 and 2016:

Fracking and energy exploration connected to earthquakes, say studies

7 million Americans at risk of man-made earthquakes

From USGS:

Are earthquakes induced by fluid-injection activities always located close to the point of injection?

Also from USGS, 2018:

What more information do you need? Do some research, folks.

Those of us who went through the 5+ years that was the Mesaba Project have the facts. If you want us to do this all over again, yes, phenomenal waste of time, but yeah, OK. Been there, done that, have the files, have the facts, here we go!

To look at the Excelsior Energy Mesaba Project docket at PUC (05-1993) go to eDocketsand search for PUC Docket 05 (year) 1993 (docket no.) in the search field.

p.s. LINK TO MESABA PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The PUC has asked for additional time, noting that our Petition for EAW for the Freeborn Wind project is expected to come before the Commission on February 6, 2020. PUC asked and PUC received:

Old news on Legalectric:

EQB forwards EAW Petition to PUC
January 3rd, 2020

Petition for EAW – Freeborn Wind
January 2nd, 2020