Photo by moi

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

NEW “Navigable Waters” Rule

January 24th, 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.”

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.

Senate Energy Bill… again

January 23rd, 2020

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

Freeborn EAW – more time!

January 23rd, 2020

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


There’s mention of “carbon capture and storage,” a/k/a/ CCS, in a DRAFT bill, SC5558-6, being considered by Minnesota’s Senate Energy Committee:

The part about CCS is this:

What’s the problem? Get out your waders…

This DRAFT bill reads as if “carbon capture and storage” is real. It reads as if “carbon capture and storage” can capture at least 80 percent of carbon dioxide generated. It reads as if carbon captured can be stored by injection. It reads as if “transferring” for use (EOR?) is a good thing.

Why are we going through this again? Well, for example, in the most recent IRS 990 posted for Great Plains Institute, they got $937,931 for “Carbon Management.”

Money talks. And they are pushing it as if — what a crock — look at this “report” and check p. 3 of 4, and decipher what it means — it’s just a map that shows ethanol plants, coal plants, EOR (note North Dakota has no little green triangles!) and saline formations (interesting that our salty aquifer way way down underneath Minnesota isn’t shown):

The Importance of Carbon Capture to Decarbonizing the Electricity Sector

They post this chart as if CCS plays a significant role, but look at the small little slivers of CCS shown:

  1. Carbon capture is not real and cannot readily capture 80%.
  2. To be stored, carbon must be transported to storage, and where might that be and how will that storage be monitored?
  3. Use of carbon for fracking has potential for and causes earthquakes, seismic activity, and associated disasters.

Years ago, July 2005, to be exact, National Geographic had a great article about impacts of gas drilling on water in Wyoming, “All Fired Up,” a/k/a/ “Tapping the Rockies,” with stunning photography by Joel Sartore:

It’s gone now… links dead… I have the hard copy, but…

Anyway, Wyoming is an example of the disasters of fracking, North Dakota another, and around Youngstown, OH, where they were injecting fracking waste, yet another:

Fracking Led to Ohio Earthquakes

Oklahoma Toughens Oil Fracking Rules After Shale Earthquakes

There’s a great piece on The Narwhal the other day about fracking and injecting gas into the earth and the instability of an existing dam and the “Site C” dam now under construction:

Peace Canyon dam at risk of failure from fracking-induced earthquakes, documents reveal

Let’s trot this one out again:

Pipedreams of Green and Clean

But there is a silver lining to this:

Trump Dumps ‘Clean Coal’ Research Despite Lauding Its Potential

Budget Guts U.S. Carbon Capture, Storage Research

Then this:

Coal industry begs Congress to save carbon capture from Trump

And so then this:

White House will promote carbon capture technology in climate change fight

EPA finalizes Trump administration’s coal-friendly climate plan

Once again, IGCC toady org Clean Air Task Force is out there in front:

Everyone Wants Carbon Capture And Sequestration — Now How To Make It A Reality?

And from that article, DOH, what we’re seeing here with Xcel, wanting to keep burning but sell their surplus on the market:

Four utilities—DTE Energy, Duke, Southern Company, and Xcel Energy—that collectively emit about a quarter of a gigaton of carbon emissions a year pledged to go “carbon-neutral” by 2050.

None, however, has pledged to stop burning fossil fuels.

This is the CCS market’s holy grail.

From the “have we learned nothing,” gleaned in all those years working on Excelsior Energy Mesaba Project, the zombie boondoggle from hell, here are a few Legalectric posts:

More on Carbon Capture Pipedream

June 28th, 2010

DOE announces Capture & Release program

May 7th, 2008

Walton’s Bill Grant and “low carbon coal”

May 14th, 2007

Carbon sequestration still ain’t ahappenin’…

February 9th, 2007

Suddenly, a Plan for Carbon Capture and Sequestration

October 19th, 2006

It’s not rocket science… “carbon capture and storage” is not real.