Ex-FBI Informant Charged With Lying About Bidens Had Russian Intelligence Contacts, Prosecutors Say


The Smirnov Affair: MAGA Republicans Are Useful Idiots for Russian Intelligence

How GOP lawmakers got caught doing Moscow’s dirty work.

Yes, it’s a real Smirnoff ad campaign, from a ways back…

There’s a small stretch of “CO2 pipeline” that Summit Carbon Solutions is trying to get through the Public Utilities Commission, it’s that little bitty part in the black square, on the western edge of central Minnesota. Here’s a closer look:

This docket is extremely important, because as the first “CO2 pipeline” to wind its way through the Public Utilities Commission, it’ll set precedent for the rest of the project, which takes up a lot of real estate in southern Minnesota:

It’s very hard to watch this after all I learned about CO2 capture and pipelines — it’s a train wreck, and I’m shocked, shocked, I tell ya, at those so enamored. And it’s equally hard to find time to weigh in, but just gotta do it. Most of those promoting it are PAID to promote this, some will do anything for money, and don’t care about the facts, but still…

Today I slapped some comments together, got filed with an hour to spare, but the scope was really limited, there’s just not much I can get done in a day (plus two trips over to Mayo, etc. – FOUR days to go!). I focused on a couple of things I know, like noise, pipeline noise; evacuation/safety zone; and the CO2 capture issues, like the percentage of CO2 captured in relation to that generated. Way back when, 30% was sort of feasible, and beyond that, too complicated, and too expensive, to be worthwhile. Also, there’s a bit efficiency hit that I don’t see being taken into account.

Here’s the DRAFT Environmental Impact Statement Narrative:

There are a LOT of Appendices, and to see them and more, a LOT more, go to the PUC’s eDockets site and look up docket 22-422. If confused, just follow the directions at the link below, and plug in “22” for the year, and “422” for the docket:

MN PUC – How To eDockets February 1st, 2024

Xcel Energy’s SEC 10-K

February 21st, 2024

Xcel’s 10-K is out, and here it is:

Check it out.

First, the peak demand, as Xcel is making bizarre claims now of projected 1.8% increase in peak demand, changed from 0.2%, or is it -0.2%, in their “Revised Application” for the MN Energy CON transmission line. Here’s “peak demand” for 2023, compared with “peak demand” for 2022. Note 2023 is LOWER than 2022, and peak demand remains essentially FLAT. DOH!

From Xcel’s IRP, filed just the other day, Chapter 1, p. 7 of 15:

And this, IRP, Chapter 3, 2 of 29:

And this, IRP Chapter 3, p. 3 of 29:

Are we really supposed to take this seriously?? Here’s peak demand over the last 24 years:

This little tidbit from p. 17 of the SEC 10-K, under “Risk Factors,” kinda says it all:

Once more with feeling:

Connect the dots, it isn’t rocket science, it’s only electricity.

No CapX 2020 Comments filed today

February 21st, 2024

Lots of Comments filed today for Scoping of the Environmental Impact Statement for the MN Energy CON, both Certificate of Nee and Routing dockets (E02/CN_22-131 and TL-22-132).

Filed for NoCapX 2020 today — EIS Scoping Comments and Attachments:

Yesterday I saw notice that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is working on an amendment to the Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) plant in Red Wing. Here’s the notice:

It’s regarded as a “major source” under the federal rules. At that plant, they make oil from soybeans, however there’s also “new raw materials for processing,” and more:

Not only is the ADM plant regarded as a “major source,” the “permit action is a major amendment” so notice has been sent out to the public. There are three options for weighing in on this:

This is the chart of projected emissions in tons:

How many pounds per year of emissions does that mean? It doesn’t say, and it should. I’ve added tons per year, and left the blanks for TOTAL because they’ve not told us what the annual emissions are, just the increase!

Maybe that’s in the Draft Air Permit?

Or maybe it’s in the Technical Support Document?

This is not my area of expertise — Alan Muller, it’s all yours!! My take is that since most of us really don’t know what this means and can’t make meaningful comments, we should have an informational meeting so we know what we’re talking about. That’s #2 on the list of participation options:

If you’d like them to hold an information meeting, here’s what they expect to see in that request, in addition to points 1, 2, and 3 above:

Public meetings are possible, though don’t hold your breath on a contested case, I’ve been involved in some pretty intense matters before the MPCA, and I’ve yet to see a contested case request granted. Public hearings have happened, so that’s something else to request if you’re wanting to see/hear public involvement.

Send written comments on the draft permit, and FYI, comments should be specific, pointing out things on specific pages, specific tables, and what they mean, what’s not included that should be, etc., again, be sure to address points 1, 2, and 3:

Get to work!!!