TWIC??? WTF???
September 16th, 2014
I’m about to undergo a “Security Threat Assessment” and pay $129.75 for the privilege. Give me a break…
Doesn’t it mean anything that I’ve got my Attorney License, #254617, sworn on oath to uphold the Constitution? Apparently not. And then again, upholding the Constitution would probably be regarded as a security threat! Such a heightened level of absurdity! Personally, it’s so intrusive, and with a $129.75 price tag for the privilege. GRRRRRR… You’d think that they’d know by now that if I was going to blow up buildings or run through the courthouse with an Uzi, I’d have done it already. But nooooooo… and I recall the implied challenges, and claims of my violating CEII regs, when I’d tried to introduce the MAPP map of transmission lines in the CapX 2020 case. How can a decision on need for a large complex build-out of transmission be made without a map of the system? How can entering a transmission map as an exhibit in a transmission Certificate of Need proceeding be a threat to security? It’s not as if the transmission lines and substations weren’t there out in the open for all the world to see!
Here’s the supposed basis for TWIC — the rules:
Worse are the social implications, the general acceptance of these regulations, when this, like the TSA airport searches, in the name of “stopping terrorism,” have zero to do with it. There’s both a false sense of security and sheep-like acceptance as necessity of these infringements on our privacy and speech. Constitutional rights going down the crapper.
Alan tells me this was a big issue in Delaware where longshoremen at the Wilmington port were required to go through this background check, and I imagine it alsonhas to do with the truck driver shortage.
From my experience in trucking, I think many truck drivers had criminal histories that have nothing to do with “terrorism,” but which would prohibit issuance of this ID, and effectively take away that person’s ability to earn a living.
A reality check on TWIC:
Thousands of Issued TWIC Cards Won’t Work Due to an Issuing ‘Error’
TWIC: too much time, money for a program of doubtful worth
Balance the number of avoided terrorists attacks (zero?) with the loss of livelihood for those disqualified workers, and employee shortage, I’d guess this has a destabilizing effect overall.
Then I learn that it’s not just that they’re checking up on us when deciding to issue the card or not, but they’re also collecting information on an ongoing basis!
How intrusive can this get? I don’t want to find out…
PUC Rulemaking — send Comments on Drafts!
September 1st, 2014
The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission is winding up its rulemaking on the Certificate of Need (Minn. R. Ch. 7849) and Siting/Routing (Minn. R. Ch. 7850) chapters. My clients Goodhue Wind Truth and North Route Group have been participating all along, and their experience with the Certificate of Need and Routing/Siting process has helped inform this record and we sure hope leads to more sensible and workable rules, AND increased public participation.
Now is the time to download and make your comments on what should be included, what’s included that’s important and needs to go forward, and what needs to be reworded.
Send Comments to:
- kate.kahlert@state.mn.us
- and/or post to the Rulemaking Docket. To do that go HERE to the eDocket Filing Page, register if you’re not registered (it’s easy and almost instant), and post to Docket 12-1246.
It’s highly likely that the LAST meeting of the PUC’s Rulemaking Advisory Committee will be September 24, 2014 (9:30 a.m. at the PUC, in the basement).
A few things that need work:
- Ch. 7849 & 7850: Need language mirroring statutory language regarding testimony by members of the public UNDER OATH (ALJs have refused to offer people opportunity to testify under oath, and PUC has stated that it makes a difference, “but were those statements made under oath” and if not, less weight.
- Ch. 7849: Advisory Task Forces need language of statute, and membership not limited to “local units of government.”
- Ch. 7849 & 7850: Transcripts available online — need to address this in rules and reporter contracts.
- Ch. 7849: Scoping and Alternatives — compare with Ch. 7850. Similar process?
- Ch. 7849.1450: When is it Commerce EER & DER
- Ch. 7849 & 7850 – timing should be similar for completeness review, etc.
- Ch. 7850: Public Meeting separate from Scoping Meeting (Public Meeting is to disseminate information, Scoping Meeting is for intake).
- Ch. 7850: Power Plant Siting Act includes “Buy the Farm.” Need rules regarding Buy the Farm.
Now is the time to review the drafts, above, and send in Comments. There may be, I hope there are, revisions released prior to the next meeting, but usually it happens just before, and there’s no time. So here’s where we are now, and Comments would be helpful.
Silica Sand Rulemaking — Mtg. Thursday 8/28
August 26th, 2014
It’s that time again — the Silica Sand Advisory Committee is meeting again on Thursday, from 10 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. at the People’s Energy Cooperative in Oronoco, Minn.
Here’s the Agenda:
Agenda
Dig this:
In my experience, the search/stretch for consensus is the first step in unreasonable compromise. It takes a push to change things, and it’s important not to give up too soon.
As you know, I’ve been frustrated at the way these meetings are handled, in that they’re NOT doing what a rulemaking advisory committee is supposed to do, which is review and comment on draft rules. And we’re not getting representation on this committee, there are no regular updates from members that I’m aware of, unless I ask on a list, so we’re not getting any opportunity for input or feedback from the representatives. Plus there’s Charlie Peterson…
I was listening to the July meeting, and for introductions, there were only six members of the committee present:
Tara Wetzel – MN Aggregate Ready Mix Assoc.
Beth Procter – Lime Twp., Blue Earth County
Al Frechette – Scott County
Doug Losee – Unimin
Tom Rowekamp – IT Sand
Kelly Stanage – Citizen Rep. from Houston County
I’ve heard from Amy Nelson that she, Keith, and Vincent Ready were there. Katie just let me know she was there. Others? Were introductions not broadcast? Did anyone come in later? Can’t tell, it was audio only (unless I’m missing something), and the audio was out for a large part of the presentation. Where are the alternates? Where are the alternates? And if members are determining that it’s a big waste of time and don’t want to show up, well, it seems they ought to let the agencies know so replacements can be found! And so the meetings can be changed to become more ___________ and less _________ so members can and will attend!
Here’s the bright spot of the day, from what I’ve seen:
Look where they put the “Advisory Panel.” IT’S IN THE RIGHT PLACE!!! YES!!! Now, there needs to be another arrow, though, or a expansion of the purple square that says, “Advisory Panel review of draft rules.” They’re sidestepping by saying that, even the EQB Board, will “review draft rule concepts.” NOPE, not good enough, eliminate that word “concepts” and let’s start reviewing rules, the Advisory Panel and the EQB. DRAFT RULES! It’s that simple.
From the site, here are the future planned meetings:
Buy the Farm — A Win For The Home Team!
May 29th, 2013
Today we had a rulemaking Advisory Committee meeting about Public Utilities Commission rules for Certificate of Need proceedings. More on that later, because at 10:00 a.m. the Minnesota Supreme Court decision on Buy the Farm was released (Buy the Farm, Minn. Stat. 216B.12, Subd. 4, is a statutory provision where landowners can force a utility to condemn their whole parcel, rather than just a narrow easement and let them get out from living under a transmission line), and oh what a decision. Kudos to Jerry Von Korff, who was at the rulemaking meeting, and his cohort Igor Lenzner, also Michael Rajkowski and Sarah Jewell, the attorneys who brought the appeal, plus Rod Krass/Kirk Schnitker and yours truly on Amicus. It was a win for landowners, homeowners, farmers, business owners, for everyone who has transmission condemnation/eminent domain cases pending, this one’s for YOU!
It really doesn’t get much better than this.
Bottom line on minimum compensation? Landowners are entitled to minimum compensation:
Appellants who elected to require utilities to condemn their entire properties in fee pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 216E.12 (2012) are entitled to minimum compensation under Minn. Stat. § 117.187 (2012) as owners who “must relocate” because on the date of the taking, the utilities took title to and possession of appellants’ entire properties.
… and …
Accordingly, we must determine whether appellants were required to relocate at the time their properties were taken. Because NSP initiated quick-take condemnation proceedings, the time of the takings with respect to appellants’ properties was when title to and possession of the property passed to NSP. See Moorhead Econ. Dev. Auth., 789 N.W.2d at 874 (explaining that “the date of the taking” in a quick-take condemnation proceeding is when “the transfer of title and possession” occurs, which is “well before the commissioners file their award”). It is undisputed that by the time title to and possession of appellants’ properties passed to NSP, appellants had made their elections under Minn. Stat. § 216E.12, subd. 4, which by operation of the statute, automatically converted the easements sought into fee takings. See Minn. Stat. § 216E.12, subd. 4 (explaining that at the time the property owner makes an election, “the easement interest over and adjacent to the lands designated by the owner to be acquired in fee . . . shall automatically be converted into a fee taking”). It follows that, at the time of the takings, NSP took title to and possession of appellants’ entire properties in fee. Therefore, we conclude that appellants were owners under Minn. Stat. § 117.187 who, at the time the takings occurred, “must relocate.” Accordingly, they are entitled to minimum compensation.
Bottom line on relocation benefits? Landowners are entitled to relocation benefits:
Because appellants are “displaced persons” under federal law, they are entitled to relocation assistance under Minn. Stat. §§ 117.50-.56 (2012).
… and…
Because appellants are required to relocate permanently, they do not fall within the exemption in 49 C.F.R. § 24.2(a)(9)(ii)(D). Therefore, because we conclude that appellants satisfy the definition of “displaced persons” under 42 U.S.C. § 4601(6)(A)(i)(I) and do not fall within any exemptions to that definition, we hold that appellants are entitled to relocation assistance under Minn. Stat. §§ 117.50-.56.
The decision was written by Justice Alan Page (photo from StarTribune www.startribune.com):
Yes, when he’s not wearing a football uniform, he’s the guy who is ALWAYS seen wearing one of his many classic “Jacobsen” bow ties, standing up for the public interest and the people of Minnesota. For him to be in the spot where he is, to do the work he’s doing, a long strange trip for a football player (sort of like it was for a truckdriver, eh?), with some good mentoring along the way.
This decision is something I’ve been working for, and toward, since I first got involved with the Chisago Transmission Project so long ago, and folks, that’s 17 years now…
Now and then, some event rates an “OH HAPPY DAY!” and this is the best of all, so this time from Aretha… OH HAPPY DAY!!!
From the St. Cloud Times:
The decision by the state’s highest court overturns a Court of Appeals decision and affirms the ruling by Stearns County District Court Judge Frank Kundrat that had been overturned by the Court of Appeals.
The Supreme Court ruling hinged on whether property owners who chose to require CapX to condemn their property would receive that compensation or whether those property owners chose to move from their property and therefore aren’t entitled to the compensation.
Read the rest of this entry »
Mesaba EIS Public Meeting Tuesday
August 20th, 2006
Excelsior now has radio ads on a station in Duluth! The lengths they’ll go to to promote this thing…
Important meeting coming up:
MINNESOTA DEPT. OF COMMERCE PUBLIC MEETINGS ON
MESABA COAL PLANT ENERGY PROJECT
Tuesday, August 22nd, 2006 at 7:00 pm
Taconite Community Center
26 Haynes Street
Taconite, Minnesota
Wednesday, August 23rd, 2006 at 7:00 pm
Hoyt Lakes Arena
102 Kennedy Memorial Drive
Hoyt Lakes, Minnesota
DOC will conduct two public scoping meetings in which agencies, organizations, and the general public is invited to present oral comments or suggestions with regard to the range of alternatives and environmental issues to be considered in the EIS.
Here’s the DoC Comment Notice.
Here’s a Comment form you can use:Â Â eis_comment_form.doc
Comments are due by August 30. Email (click here) or send to:
Bill Storm
Dept. of Commerce
85 – 7th Place E., Suite 500
St. Paul, MNÂ 55101-2198
August 30 is not that far away! Get your comments in today!
=================================================
And fresh editorials from the Grand Rapids Herald Review:
 Project will affect people’s health
Editor:
There are times when sacrifices made to promote economic development may be appropriate. However, I am troubled by the massive sacrifices that our elected officials are supporting for the handful of permanent jobs proposed by the Mesaba Energy project. In addition to around 100 permanent jobs (a reduction by 900 since the original proposal) there are other â??developmentsâ? Excelsior Energyâ??s IGCC (Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle) plants will bring if built.
Canisteo Lake will be closed for recreational use and a massive pumping station will operate on the lake to serve the plant. One hundred-forty foot transmission towers will impede on private and public land, forcing landowners off in a controversial use of eminent domain. People will become sick as documented in Excelsiorâ??s own literature. Miles and miles of coal trains will travel through Grand Rapids each week. Snowmobile trails will close or reroute to make room for the plant footprint. One thousand two hundred acres of hunting land will now be off-limits. Carbon dioxide will be pumped into the air, contributing to global warming, along with tons of sulfur dioxide, pounds of mercury, and other particulates that cause asthma and other respiratory problems. Children will be exposed to unsafe levels of electro magnetic fields, putting them at greater risk for childhood leukemia. Groundwater aquifers that supply drinking water to nearby communities are at risk for contamination when Canisteo Lake becomes polluted. Millions upon millions of dollars will be bonded by the county, placing us at financial risk and possibly increasing our property taxes. How will schools, health care facilities, and housing developers deal with the glut and then absence of hundreds of imported construction workers? Hire then fire? Build then abandon?
Our health is our wealth. Development that endangers our personal, environmental, and financial health to this extent is too big a sacrifice for us to take on. We should demand better! The carbon dioxide can be captured in IGCC technology but not in this location. More mercury can be captured than what Excelsior is proposing. Technology exists to prevent water pollution. Local dollars do not have to be used to build infrastructure. My hope is that we can promote economic development in a way that achieves balance and addresses the reality of the future.
Kristen K. Anderson
Bovey
-=============================================
Editor:
As I read the information provided in the Environmental Supplement for Excelsior Energy’s proposed coal gasification plant I became very angry. How is it that a power plant with a potential to contaminate our wells and the air we breathe could even be considered for this area when no one has demonstrated the need for the electricity and the power would be sent down to the Cities and beyond anyway. Where are the people that were given the responsibility of protecting our health?
If this plant is built in this beautiful area I will have lost all faith in the system, the checks and balance that were designed to protect our quality of life. We should look at the future results of this and keep in mind that this will effect us a lot more then what they are showing or telling us.
Pam Perry
BoveyÂ