… and this:

And this, just in, click to enlarge:


It was voluntarily dismissed, AND their attorney withdrew from the case. It’s “without prejudice,” meaning they can refile if they want to. That, however, would be a phenomenally bad idea.

Well, that’s good news. But I was looking forward to duking it out with them, because they need to be slapped upside the head. You can’t try to pull off a recall election, using bogus rationale, because they don’t like how the Council voted, particularly where they voted 6-1 to fire the police chief.

Prior Legalectric posts:

Red Wing VOTERS Intervention Filed in Recall City Hall lawsuit

RW Council Meeting, and Recall lawsuit in Roch PB

Overland Comment on Recall Petition to City Council today

Frivolous Recall Lawsuit Filed

Dean Hove 2” Recall Petitions

Tonight – Red Wing Recall again

Recall Petitions here!

Recall the Recall? Hove again!

RW Council Mtg – RECALL NOT!

Recall? (SNORT!) NO! NO! NO!

You say there’s gonna be a recall…

“Recall” on Charter Commission agenda?!?

Red Wing VOTERS has filed a Petition for Intervention in the Recall City Hall lawsuit that was filed August 6th, and a Stipulation to Intervention has been circulated to the Recall and City attorneys:

Here’s the short version, from the intro:

This Motion is made the grounds of Red Wing VOTERS’ interest in the fundamental right to vote and preserving the integrity of open, free, and fair elections, specifically, the City of Red Wing elections of 2018 and 2020.  Red Wing VOTERS is an association of voters in Red Wing who oppose the recall effort, representing voters who elected Red Wing City Council members and their interests.  Red Wing VOTERS has a defense to Petitioners’ claim for “correction of ballot error M.S. A. §204B.44,” which, if Petitioners prevail, would have the detrimental impact of invalidating the 2018 and 2020 elections through a recall of six of seven duly elected City Council members and disenfranchising the voters who elected these City Council members.  If Petitioners prevail, Red Wing VOTERS would suffer irreparable harm.  Red Wing VOTERS has an interest in those issues focused on the broad rights of citizens and voters under the Charter and correct interpretation thereof, an interest distinct from the interests of, and not represented by, the City of Red Wing.

Recall is an extreme remedy — it’s not for those times when you don’t like what City elected officials do, how they vote, even when you REALLY don’t like it. Recall is the remedy for malfeasance and/or nonfeasance.

If you look at Recall City Hall’s Petition to the District Court, search for “procedural,” and you’ll see repeated insistence that their Recall Petitions are “procedurally sufficient.” And they don’t address “malfeasance” except to say that the state definition of malfeasance shouldn’t apply! There’s nothing addressing the need of their Recall Petition to be both procedurally and LEGALLY sufficient. And action by the City, scheduling a recall election, is only triggered by a finding that their petition is sufficient:

“If the petition or amended petition is found sufficient…” Is that so hard to understand?

In addition to “sufficiency,” the Recall Petitioners argue that the City SHALL schedule an election if their petition is (just) procedurally sufficient (and no addressing legal sufficiency).

There are many voters here in Red Wing who are fed up with this divisive Recall City Hall effort.

Prior to the August 9, 2021 City Council meeting, and it turns out before the City was served, I sent this review of their Petition:









I’m looking forward to this. There’s a scheduling conference on Friday, and by then I’ll know if the Recall attorney and City attorney will stipulate to our intervention or whether we’ll have to have a hearing.

Census Bureau hasn’t updated its page yet (they’re busy?!?!) and says they WILL release info, so here’s the press page with future info (!) and lots of links:

Census Bureau Press Page (with lots of options)

Here’s the Demographic Map Viewer

Goodhue County’s populations went up 3%:

It’ll be easy to get lost in this. And the full census info has yet to be released!

Naaaaaah, not that type… THIS TYPE, the type that can substitute for transmission, yes, that is NOW a realistic alternative to transmission lines:

Batteries are helping California make up for lost hydro power

John Wellinghoff, former FERC Chair, testified extensively in a Deposition in Wisconsin’s Cardinal-Hickory Creek transmission docket (05-CE-146, go HERE for docket fiings) about use of battery storage, its viability as alternative to transmission, and cost recovery under the FERC cost recovery scheme:

Citizens Utility Board’s witness Mary Neal noted in Surrebuttal that transmission is an “outdated narrative,” and that batteries offered choice by changing the need for transmission:

And just now, George Nygaard fired off a missive about energy losses associated with battery storage. Oh my, something that hadn’t occurred to me before, a rare occurrance, and, well, it’s a big DOH!

And yes, it’s an issue, and it’s time to dig in and learn about storage. Best about this is that it’s yet another argument for siting near load:

Grid-Scale Battery Storage: Frequently Asked Questions

And this is the part that blows my dress up:

And from the U.S. Energy Information Administration:

Battery Storage in the United States: An Update on Market Trends

Losses are addressed in “round trip efficiency” which with battery storage is at 95%, hard to beat. From NREL’s Energy Storage: Days of Service
Sensitivity Analysis
, here’s a comparison with hydrogen:

And here’s where it gets interesting — also from NREL’s Energy Storage: Days of Service Sensitivity Analysis:

Efficiency rules… and transmission loses in this calculation.