“Nothing came of it. To us, it’s a moot point,” Tyreman added.
Tyreman couldn’t say much about the threat.
The Coroners Service is expected to release the identity of the victim today.
Carol A. Overland, Overland Law Office — Utility Regulatory and Land Use Advocacy
My clients have a tendency to hang around like bad habits — once awake to utility schemes, they take a bite and won’t let go. I’ve been blessed with an active bunch, and today I woke up to another example. Nancy “BOOM!” Prehn is one of my faves, she lives on top of the only natural gas underground storage dome in Minnesota, under about 10 square miles north of Waseca. She singlehandedly got an EAW on how the gas company was handling water. At the time, they were releasing water from wells onto their fields, and it wasn’t helping the corn and beans any. Turns out it wasn’t seriously polluted, and the gas company had to build a water treatment facility and storage tanks at each well to contain the water, and then suck it out, bring it over to HQ and run it through the treatment system before releasing it.
Nancy has a way of being ahead of the curve, and when she starts digging, look out. Now she’s working on tax credits for those with utility infrastructure on their land, like a natural gas dome! It’s needed for gas and oil pipelines too!
Here’s what she found today, from the 1979 legislative session, check Article 2, Section 20, a tax credit for landowners living under transmission lines — how did I not know this?
Chapter 303 | HF1495 |
And it’s still law today:
How much is this tax credit? Well, it’s complicated… and there’s a ceiling, see the statute for specifics:
It was enacted during the last transmission build-out, circa 1979, and has been changed many times over the years:
History:
(2012-3) 1925 c 306 s 3; 1949 c 554 s 3; 1978 c 658 s 4; 1979 c 303 art 2 s 20; 1980 c 607 art 10 s 3; 1Sp1981 c 1 art 2 s 15; 1982 c 523 art 16 s 1; 1Sp1985 c 14 art 4 s 70; 1Sp1986 c 1 art 4 s 24; 1987 c 268 art 6 s 35; 1Sp1989 c 1 art 2 s 11; 1990 c 604 art 3 s 22; 1Sp2001 c 5 art 3 s 44; 2003 c 127 art 5 s 21; 2014 c 275 art 1 s 90
Note this one that changed it from any “high voltage transmission line” as defined by then PPSA 116C.52, Subd. 3, to a high voltage transmission line “with a capacity of 200 kilovolts or more”
which also happened in the Buy the Farm statute:
Bottom line — it’s good people affected by transmission get a tax credit for their burden, but it’s bad that it’s not assessed to the ones that took that easement. It should be assessed to utilities/energy companies, the ones causing it and benefiting from it, not the rest of us taxpayers who have to make up the difference for local governments who need the tax revenues.
TO DO: We need to make this tax credit applicable to all energy infrastructure (Note I said “energy” and not “utility” because there’s a lot of infrastructure being built that is NOT utility. but oil companies, and those “transmission only” private purpose companies.) and to assess the entity that burdened the property for the amount of that tax credit.
That’s the Coal Creek plant, a photo I took on a tour. If you’re an electric co-op member in Minnesota (elsewhere too?), they offer tours regularly, and it’s something you should do! Check your co-op’s newsletter for info.
State Register Notice:
Just released FEDERAL Clean Power Plan:
Clean Power Plan Final Rule (PDF)(1560 pp, 3.3 MB, About PDF) – August 2015
Look at how the “adjusted” Minnesota’s baseline levels due to Sherco 3 being out for nearly 2 years:
The EPA examined units nationwide with 2012 outages to determine where an individual unit-level outage might yield a significant difference in state goal computation. When applying this test to all of the units informing the computation of the BSER, emission performance rates, and statewide goals, the EPA determined that the only unit with a 2012 outage that 1) decreased its output relative to preceding and subsequent years by 75 percent or more (signifying an outage), and 2) could potentially impact the state’s goal as it constituted more than 10 percent of the state’s generation was the Sherburne County Unit 3 in Minnesota. The EPA therefore adjusted this state’s baseline coal steam generation upwards to reflect a more representative year for the state in which this 900 MW unit operates.
Clean Power Plan Final Rule (PDF p. 796 of 1560).
And from the state, which acknowledges imminent release of FEDERAL Clean Power Plan Final Rule , also released today, just in from the MPCA (direct quote):
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has issued a request for comments on possible rule amendments to bring Minnesota into compliance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Clean Power Plan. You can read the full request in the August 3, 2015, edition of the State Register, available at www.comm.media.state.mn.us/bookstore/mnbookstore.asp?page=register.
The amendments we are considering will help Minnesota meet standards established by the Clean Power Plan, which sets state-specific carbon dioxide emission targets and requires each state to submit a plan detailing its strategy for meeting the targets. As of State Register press time, we have not yet started drafting a plan because the EPA has not yet published the standards that Minnesota’s plan will need to meet, so the MPCA requests public input to help guide our considerations of methods for meeting the EPA’s targets, as well as any other objectives that the state’s plan might include.
Stakeholder meeting agendas, notes, and other related documents are posted on the website for this rulemaking at www.pca.state.mn.us/w9y3awr.
To access information about a particular Minnesota rulemaking, visit the Public Rulemaking Docket.
Xcel Energy’s 2nd quarter call was this morning.
Xcel Energy (XEL) Benjamin G. S. Fowke on Q2 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript
From the Seeking Alpha transcript, a cute tidbut:
Got that?
That’s a ways away from the 2.49% upon which the CapX 2020 transmission build-out was based. DOH!
And about multi-year plans and why they “underperformed,” there was this snippet on the Seeking Alpha transcript:
And from our friends at Xcel:
And more:
• Xcel Energy Second Quarter 2015 Earnings Report
• Xcel Energy Second Quarter 2015 Earnings Presentation
And for those of you into charts and graphs (from the 2Q 2015 Report_1001200774):
As if they don’t exist? Yes, and that’s because they don’t. That’s because they’re transmission projects in their own minds, and not in reality.
What? SPP, the Southwest Power Pool, dissing Clean Line? See for yourself! It’s as simple as doing a simple search of the SPP planning reports.
We know, Clean Line is all about Clean Line, but there’s a significant disconnect between what Clean Line is saying about SPP, claiming “approval” of its projects and incorporation of those projects into SPP’s plans, and the reality of what shows up in those plans. Or more correctly, what DOESN’T show up in those plans:
CLEAN LINE IS ABSENT!
PLAINS & EASTERN CLEAN LINE IS ABSENT!
GRAIN BELT EXPRESS CLEAN LINE IS ABSENT!
Whadda ya mean? Well, on November 19, 2012, Plains & Eastern Clean Line sent out this press release:
SPP Transmission Working Group approves Plains & Eastern Clean Line reliability studies
This press release was EVERYWHERE, with Clean Line jubilant, jumping up and down, so excited and so elated, and stated that:
The Southwest Power Pool’s (SPP) Transmission Working Group today unanimously passed a motion accepting that the Plains & Eastern Clean Line reliability studies completed to date have met the coordinated planning requirements.
And went on to say (emphasis added) that:
Clean Line is also pleased to announce that it recently submitted the Plains & Eastern Clean Line and Grain Belt Express Clean Line projects, both +/- 600 kV high voltage direct current transmission projects capable of transmitting 3,500 MW from the SPP footprint to external-to-SPP sinks, in each of the ITP20 Futures 1 through 4. The objective of ITP20 is to develop an EHV backbone (345 kV and above) transmission plan for a 20-year horizon. The assessment will identify a robust transmission plan that is capable of reliably and economically providing deliverability of energy to the SPP market while enabling policy initiatives. The current ITP20 process is the second Integrated Transmission Planning Year 20 Assessment (ITP20). The assessment is conducted in accordance with the SPP Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) Attachment O, and the approved ITP Manual. The assessment begins in January 2012 and is scheduled to be finalized in July 2013.
Here’s that 2013 ITP 20:
2013 ITP20 Report – Southwest Power Pool
Now check out the map of their ITP20 projects in this report — do you see either the Plains & Eastern or Grain Belt mentioned above on this map:
Nope, neither do I. I did a search of the narrative, and “Clean Line” isn’t even mentioned once!
And there are no ITP20s after that 2013 one above, either HERE on the ITP Assessments page or HERE on the ITP20 Documents page!
Oh, OK, so what about the SPP Planning and SPP’s STEP (not unlike the MTEP and RTEP!):
2015_STEP_Report
Do a search — nada… so I tried a search on “transmission” and blew up the computer. So the search function works and in this report also, there’s no mention of Clean Line whatsoever, be it Plains & Eastern Clean Line or Grain Belt Clean Line or just plain ol’ Clean Line.
And there’s nothing here either:
It’s only in the 2015 ITP10 SCOPE that there’s any mention of “Clean Line” and it’s only the Plains & Eastern Clean Line, not both, AND it’s only for sensitivity analysis. This is not being included as a project, contemplated or promoted.
And in the resulting 2015 ITP10? A mention in the list of sensitivities, and then three mentions on p. 103:
And in the SPP 2015 Final Near Term Assessment, not a mention:
When it comes to the scope of their next ITP10, Clean Line disappears, not even one mention, nada, again, not even an honorable mention as a “sensitivity” in the scope:
Meanwhile, Illinois is holding “public hearings” that are very limited for what a large project this is, and very odd, considering that there are pending Motions for Reconsideration in this docket (Grain Belt Express Docket #15-0277 online at ICC’s e-docket system at www.icc.illinois.gov).
Public hearings tonight and tomorrow in Illinois:
I’d hope that Illinois, Missouri, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Tennessee pay attention to this lack of incorporation of any Clean Line project into SPP Planning!
Oh, and of course, the DOE should be paying attention! Hey Office of Electric Deliverability and Energy Reliability, are you paying attention?
This killing is very disheartening. I’m shook. As one who spends an inordinate amount of time outside the doorway of nearly every utility infrastructure meeting, open house, and hearing, handing out flyers and greeting everyone as the come in (just attended this last round of GNTL, printer not working so no flyers to be handed out!), this killing by RCMP is most disturbing. When stationed outside meetings, I’ve been told to leave, to stop handing out flyers (pretty revolutionary flyers, too, telling people how to file comments on the records, urging them to show up at hearings), and I’ve been told to get off private property, that’s happened a few times over the years. And each time I’ve objected, “resisted” following their directions, standing my ground. I’ve also objected to police presence at these meetings — sometimes they’re called to keep an eye on things (?? exactly what and why??), and admittedly certain people, and I tell the organizers and the officers that I object, and stress that it has a chilling effect on participation. Now? Guess I’ll think twice, or maybe three times, about getting vocal when told to leave.
What happened in Dawson Creek? There was a tweet prior to the meeting saying “Anonymous splinter group (to) attend the scheduled meeting in Dawson Creek tonight starting at 6pm,” (seems to have been deleted?). One protester attended the open house, and he got rowdy at a meeting, it’s not clear exactly what happened, did he have a mask on or not, but it sounds like he dumped over displays and tore up maps, and then was asked to leave and he did leave the meeting without further hassle. Meanwhile someone called police. RCMP arrived on high alert, found a man at the entrance wearing a mask, according to statements, officers presumed it was same one disrupting the open house, they had an agitated back and forth with the man near the door, it’s reported he had a knife, in hand or in case on belt. RCMP shoots and kills him. The youtube shows the aftermath. Photos show a guy with hood up, Guy Fawkes mask on, hands in front of him. He visibly bled out on the sidewalk. Initially, it was reported that it was the same guy as was inside the open house, and then, many hours afterwards, they revealed that no, the man who was killed was not the same person who was causing the disturbance at the open house (not that causing a disturbance should be a death sentence), and the one causing the disturbance had left the scene, he was alive and well. There were also reports that the man shot and killed was involved in an unrelated domestic disturbance in the bar but that has disappeared from reports and appears not to be true. An apartment was raided, and it seems it was the “disruptors” family’s apartment.
Regional District wants BC Hydro to hit brakes on Site C
Site C Dam and Powerplant Not Needed
And let’s not have anymore gatherings about this project for a while, makes sense:
BC Hydro Site C protest in Vancouver cancelled due to concerns about violence
And:
B.C. Hydro delays Site C job fair events in three northern B.C. communities, citing safety concerns
But I sure hope everyone’s keeping in mind just who’s being violent here!
Alaska Highway News seems to be doing the most thorough coverage of this, and where else is this being reported? The man shot by RCMP outside the BC Hydro Site C meeting, about the proposed new dam project, was identified as James McIntire:
Police shooting victim identified as James McIntyre
Victim was an employee at another Dawson Creek restaurant