Legalectric

A little holiday gift for my good friends at NSP/Xcel Energy:

The issues I’m concerned about, at this point, are primarily transmission related:

This should be intense, guaranteed, but fun, eh?

The Public Utilities Commission has referred Xcel Energy’s rate case petition to Office of Administrative Hearings for a contested case, no surprise. PUC Docket E002/GR-21-630.

So while digging through rate case filings related to transmission, I noticed FERC has issues pending that will affect transmission rate recovery, and decided to take a peek at FERC and did find this recent FERC Order issued last Thursday on transmission line ratings, so I’m parking that here for future reference:

Back in October, there was a Federal Register notice published that the Forest Service has made an application to withdraw 225,378 acres from NEW (not existing) leasing, land in the Rainy River Watershed and near the BWCA. This application to withdraw the land from leasing follows the prior administration’s quashing of Obama administration withdrawal, thus opening up land for mineral leasing in 2018 — from press release (linked):

And now there’s another application to turn that around and again stop leasing Minnesota land for minerals exploration! GOOD! Let’s undo their undoing!

And some movement forward — on December 14, 2021, the Superior National Forest Supervisor’s Office issued Notice of three meetings for public comment.

CLICK HERE for the Superior National Forest page on this Application

There’s an article in the STrib now: Meetings set to gather public input on proposal to halt new mineral leases near Boundary Waters

The meetings a rather weird set up — you have to register to get the Zoom link, and specify if you want to comment, and then they’ll do a drawing to see who can comment! No guarantees that you can!

Here are the meeting dates and links to register for comment:

Register for the Meeting on Wednesday, January 12, 2022, 1:00 PM to 4:00 PM, CST at https://blm.zoomgov.com/webinar/register/WN_z0ihp2ikSkSug9QnsaLjag

Register for the Meeting on Saturday, January 15, 2022, 10 a.m. to 1 p.m., CST at https://blm.zoomgov.com/webinar/register/WN_q9OWw5P3TSuvACoQ2o6gnQ

Register for the Meeting on Tuesday, January 18, 2022, 5 p.m. to 8 p.m., CST at https://blm.zoomgov.com/webinar/register/WN_rs2ueUYaQ-CoRO25s2bLqA

When you register, you’ll get a link to zoom right away, and then you’re notified whether you’ve been selected to make a comment 3 days before the meeting.

Documents thus far — only scoping:

Scoping

• 12-07-2021 2021-22958 BLM Federal Register Notice 10-21-2021 (PDF 204kb)
• 12-07-2021 Superior NF Mineral Withdrawal Request Letter 2021-09-28 (PDF 194kb)
• 12-07-2021 Superior National Forest Withdrawal Application 2021-09-28 (PDF 392kb)
• 12-07-2021 Appendix A Land List 2021-09-16 (PDF 134kb)
• 12-07-2021 Withdrawal Regulation 43 CFR 2300 (PDF 220kb)
• 12-07-2021 Appendix B Withdrawal Area Map 2021-09-16 (PDF 1379kb)
• 12-13-2021 2021-27036 BLM Federal Register Notice 12-14-2021 (PDF 192kb)
• 12-15-2021 Scoping Letter 12-15-2021 (PDF 141kb)

Something I’m wondering about is what exactly is affected, is it the brown on the map, is it everything within the red boundary, or is that brown existing leases that will not be included in this withdrawal? I’m just starting to look into this, so I’ll update this post as I figure it out.

And AGAIN! It’s the Power Plant Siting Act Annual Hearing! You can attend in person, MASKED, or via webex or phone. Primary documents are posted below.

December 20, 2021 @ 9:30

PUC Large Meeting Room

121 – 7th Place East – 3rd Floor

St. Paul, MN

Comments? BE SURE TO NOTE DOCKET NUMBER FOR COMMENTS:

PUC Docket E999/PR-21-18 & OAH Docket 65-2500-37832

Written comments will be accepted through January 10, 2022, by 4:30 p.m.

Note notice only to those “who have requested notice” above? Nope, notice should be to all who are on service and project lists for projects active in the calendar year. Thankfully EERA does give notice to a lot more than just those “who have requested notice” (see “Notice & Service Lists” link posted above).

From the EQB Monitor:

Here are the projects EERA’s Summary says were approved — note that for wind it does NOT list applicable parts of 216E, such as Minn. Stat. 216E.03, Subd. 7!

Meanwhile, the update of rules for PPSA siting, Minn. R. ch. 7850, is stalled out again, WITHDRAWN by the PUC last Thursday, supposedly based on many comments made over the last few weeks by a bunch of people and orgs who were utterly absent through the NINE YEARS of this rulemaking proceeding. My grits are FRIED! The PUC Agenda Item starts at the very end of the meeting, and note the bogus statements about the “why” of this rulemaking. Let’s be clear here — it’s due to the 2005 legislative changes, SIXTEEN YEARS AGO. See PUC Docket R-12-1246. Good grief… Discussion starts at 2:48:28:

Here’s the letter “she” authored and it was signed by 38 others:

The good news is that our Representative, Rep. Barb Haley, had this to say about this letter when I asked her what she was doing about those who signed this partisan push against vaccination:

Here’s the ruling U.S. Supreme Court case establishing solid precedent for vaccination mandates in a public health emergency:

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)

See that? 1905. This is nothing new.

Write to those state Reps who signed, easy-peasy cut and paste:

rep.peggy.bennett@house.mn, rep.kurt.daudt@house.mn, rep.anne.neu@house.mn, rep.tony.albright@house.mn, rep.matt.bliss@house.mn, rep.greg.boe@house.mn, rep.john.burkel@house.mn, rep.brian.daniels@house.mn, rep.greg.davids@house.mn, rep.bob.dettmer@house.mn, rep.sondra.erickson@house.mn, rep.mary.franson@house.mn, rep.steve.green@house.mn, rep.matt.grossell@house.mn, rep.glenn.gruenhagen@house.mn, rep.osh.heintzeman@house.mn, rep.jerry.hertaus@house.mn, rep.brian.johnson@house.mn, rep.deb.kiel@house.mn, rep.ron.kresha@house.mn, rep.eric.lucero@house.mn, rep.joe.mcdonald@house.mn, rep.shane.mekeland@house.mn, rep.marion.oneill@house.mn, rep.patricia.mueller@house.mn, rep.nathan.nelson@house.mn, rep.paul.novotny@house.mn, rep.john.petersburg@house.mn, rep.brian.pfarr@house.mn, rep.nels.pierson@house.mn, rep.john.poston@house.mn, rep.duane.quam@house.mn, rep.donald.raleigh@house.mn, rep.peggy.scott@house.mn, rep.chris.swedzinski@house.mn, rep.tama.theis@house.mn, rep.paul.torkelson@house.mn, rep.dean.urdahl@house.mn

Here’s what I wrote to them, and copied Mayo at mcadmin@mayo.edu:

All –

Your letter to Dr. Farrugia, CEO of Mayo, and the “demonstration” here at the Red Wing Mayo on Monday are absurd. I for sure do not want to go to any “health care provider” where employees are not vaccinated and masked.

Every day for the last 20+ months I have posted the state reports and Goodhue County details, so I am very aware of the trajectory of COVID here and nationwide.  This is the list of Minnesota counties in order of COVID infections today (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/minnesota-covid-cases.html).  Thankfully my county is dropping on the list — where is your county?

As an attorney, I raise the leading U.S. Supreme Court case setting precedent for a vaccination mandate in a public health emergency, and it’s a case from 1905, Jacobson v. Massachusetts. 

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/

Another issue — the letter you signed says “This is especially relevant considering that many of your employees do not need this vaccine because they have naturally acquired immunity gained from recovered illness.”  This is DISinformation — it’s not true. Shame on you for spreading this.

Ignoring the standing law, and ignoring science, is not helping your constituents, it is harmful disinformation, and it is neither ethically nor morally supportable.

Please retract this letter.

Carol A. Overland, Red Wing resident who must go to Mayo, the only game in town.

And a report on this from the STrib:

Minnesota House Republicans criticize Mayo Clinic for employee vaccine mandate