Parking it here for future reference.

RE: PURPOSE AND NEED MEETINGS — CORRECTION FROM DOT:

CORRECTION: Purpose and Need Statement now available for proposed Twin Cities-Milwaukee-Chicago Intercity Passenger Rail Service


Our mistake! We gave you the wrong public information meeting dates in yesterday’s update. Wisconsin’s meeting is actually first. Correct dates are:

  • Sept. 6 at the La Crosse County Administrative Center in Wisconsin
  • Sept. 7 at St. Paul’s Union Depot 

We wouldn’t want you to miss these important public meetings. Sorry for the confusion.

===============================

There’s been a lot of bruhaha here about the “Zip Rail,” but that’s now “Zip” since the DOT suspended “work” on that project.  What’s new is that there’s a specific initiative by the DOT now for adding a 2nd daily passenger train to and from the Twin Cities to Chicago, serving multiple points in between.  THIS IS NOT A HIGH SPEED RAIL PROPOSAL, it’s adding another passenger train on the eastern end of the Empire Builder route.

Here’s Amtrak’s 2015 feasibility report (PDF) 

And the reports this rail group has generated with DOT:

Meetings seem to be held monthly, but there’s no notice of when the next meeting is on the e“meetings” page, and there are no details of the meetings, agenda, minutes, presentations, etc.   See future forum meetings.  HA!  They’re missing PAST meeting!

Look at the “Public Engagement” and tell me if you see anything about the public, and look at “Membership/Members” and tell me if you see anything other than corporations, governmental and lobbying organizations — WHERE’S THE PUBLIC?

Here’s the “Put Me On The List” link, copied from their page: contact the MnDOT Project Managers or Mary McFarland, MnDOT Communications.

Have at it, and keep an eye out for a Fall 2017 public meeting where the Purpose and Need Statement – July 2017 (PDF) will be presented and discussed (it does not note a formal comment period).

ceamap

Once more with feeling, the Public and Evidentiary hearings for the Rochester natural gas pipeline are coming up early next month (PUC Notice):

hrgsched

Here’s the testimony from MERC and the Commerce “Comments” so far:

Direct_Rick J Moser_201610-125945-04

Direct_Lindsay K Kyle_201610-125945-03

Direct_Amber S Lee_201610-125945-02

Comments were received on the “CEA” and remember, the Comparative Environmental Assessment” is an environmental review document ruled insufficient (Sandpiper Appellate Decision-CEA) for the Sandpiper pipeline:

MERC_comments_201610-125498-01

DOC_EERA_Public Comments Received_201610-125737-01

And general public comments and scoping comments received earlier:

DOT_Comments_20164-120024-01

DNR_1of4_20164-120059-01

DNR_2of4_20164-120059-02

DNR_3of4_20164-120059-03

DNR_4of4_20164-120059-04

Rochester Olmsted Planning Department Comments

Laursen_Comments_20166-122017-01

Hanson_20164-120598-01

Ryan_20164-120680-01

Anderson_20164-120670-01

Meyer Farms_20164-120638-01-1

Kottschade_WSB_20164-120641-01

Westridge Hills_20164-120640-01-1

NNG_Eller_20164-120644-01

Jacobson_20164-120688-01

Dee_20164-120687-01

Darnell & Dee_20164-120689-01

 

 

 

Last night in Mazeppa

October 28th, 2009

dsc00304

Last night, Rep. Steve Drazkowski and Rep. Tim Kelly (who wasn’t there!) hosted a meeting about CapX 2o2o.

drazkowski_2 timkelly

But Rep. Randy Demmer, 29A was.

randydemmer

As one person said, he had a “deer in the headlights” look as he sat in the front of the room.  Did he have any idea what he’d be in for?  I’d talked with him a bit when he came in, and he said he hadn’t heard from many constituents about CapX… oh… OK, well, we can do something about that!  And it’s good he showed up to find out what was going on and hear the word on the streets and in the fields.

Short version of the meeting:

  • Bill Glahn gets roasted for MOES “Minnesota_Resource_Assessment” report, which is utter crap, the report, that is… the roasting was well-deserved.
  • PUC, Commerce, and DOT show up en mass and toady for process and project.
  • Rep. Drazkowski utters words of placation, but did not promote Nov. 4 joint committee hearing on repeal of Minn. Stat. 117.19.  HE’S ON ONE OF THE COMMITTEES, EARTH TO MARS!!!
  • Affected landowners don’t buy it,  they get that fundamentally CapX 2020 is not needed and are pissed-off at the crap (see above).
  • CapX said they were not going through or around Rochester.

There were two things I let slide, can’t take on everything:

1.Their statements about Big Stone were odd, theywell knows that Big Stone could not interconnect without CapX, and I have the electrical studies which prove it, which after trying 5 times to make it work with a line to nowhere (Granite Falls) then assumed CapX in try #6…   But I also wonder whether CapX Brookings (hence all of CapX) can go forward without Big Stone.

2. They kept saying “this is all about local load” and denying the LaX to Mad line, and kept talking about Rochester as the driver, yet they did not note, of course, the new gas plant at West Side sub or the four 161kV lines that are planned.

Overland’s Scorecard (concept stolen from Deb!):

CapX:     0
PUC:     -5
DOT:       1
Commerce:   -4
The People: +1

Longer version, bigger photo:

The people did a good job of expressing their displeasure and disbelief.

Bill Glahn brought up the Minnesota Resource Assessment Survey!  Bad move…  He  got one of my awards for that Minnesota Resource Assessment Survey, and here’s Maccabee – Presentation to LEC 10/23/09 , another voice saying it’s outrageous.  Last night  Alan Muller got him good about it, told him” it was  an unsatisfactory report, basically just a regurgitation of the business plans of MN… no independent thinking and not in the interests of the citizens of Minnesota …”  Alan does have a way with words.  When asked for a response Glahn looked abashed and admitted that he knows many people are unhappy with it.  AS WELL HE SHOULD!  I mean really… to use as an example that phony “chart” of Steve Rakow’s on p. 6:

rakownapkindemand

… with no ID of meaning of X or Y axis, it’s deceitful, but they pulled that in CapX when faced with decreased demand, entering this chart, then citing its entry in the CapX 2020 Certificate of need record as if it means something.  Oh, pleeeeeeeeze…  We’re way below the 2004 actuals, and this forecast, for the Blue Lake expansion, it’s CapX 2020 era forecasts, we’re about 1,500MW down and growing, down 15% so far, down 2.5% in 1&2Q 2009, SEC 3Q filing and investor call due any second now will take it down further:

annual-base-peak-demand2

After last night’s meeting, Bill Glahn is certainly under fire, but I also got the feeling due to the cadre of state employees stumping for CapX, that it’s their perception that it’s in trouble.  It could be something as simple as they have no financing to do it, that demand is so far down that it makes no sense even to PUC and applicants to build it, or …  The DOT was distancing itself, there’s been a lot of pressure on DOT.  The DOT has its “Policy of Accomodation” (at issue in Chisago Transmission Project III, or IV, the last round, where Xcel stuck poles, BIG poles, right in the middle of the new plan for US Hwy. 8, in one example, right next to and over a business), and here it is:

DOT Policy on Utility Accomodation

…and I don’t think they’re going to change that anytime soon.  At the Legislative Energy Commission meeting in September, there was mention of an October 13 meeting with the DOT, but Dave Sykora, DOT, mentioned that was cancelled, and instead they met last week.  There were no specifics disclosed, but the feeling I got from what was said was that it didn’t go the way legislators wanted it to, DOT didn’t cave.  Legislators are looking, from Rep. Drazkowski’s statements last night, and from Rep. Westrom’s comments at the LEC meeting, for a way to do the project with minimal landowner pain.  I don’t think that’s doable, and it’s sure not desirable.   CapX 2020 is a project that shouldn’t be built, and if it is, it will cause considerable pain, for landowners, applicants and legislators!

Also noteworthy last night was the general failure to accept “need” and a high level of understanding, and for the most part, people are getting the broader picture.  (there was an odd comment by Burl Haar that if there were questions about the appeal of the CapX decision, that they post most things on the docket, and to check with him!).  So is the PUC’s argument that this belongs at the District Court, and not the Appellate Court (despite what Cupit says) on display in the docket for the world to see?  I doubt it, but I’ll check.

Last night, Drazkowski kept referring to efforts to alter the eminent domain law, but he was evasive and didn’t disclose important info, like the upcoming November 4 hearing before Energy & Civil Justice (he’s on Civil Justice!) (Upcoming hearing on repeal of eminent domain exemptions), and he didn’t advise on how to advocate for change, dropped the ball, wouldn’t even pick it up.

Here’s the info on the hearing:

WEDNESDAY, November 4, 2009
10:00 AM
Joint Meeting of the Energy Finance & Policy Division and Civil Justice Committee
Room: 5 State Office Building
Chairs: Rep. Bill Hilty, Rep. Joe Mullery
Agenda: Informational hearing on HF1182 (Bly) Public service corporation exemptions repealed.

Anyone wishing to testify should contact Andy Pomroy at andy.pomroy [at] house.mn
Last night’s meeting in Mazeppa on CapX 2020  follows on the heels of one last Monday night in Chisago, about an 855MW gas plant proposed by LS Power, the Sunrise River Energy Station.  Click here for  Report on Monday Chisago meeting.  They’ve  proposed at least three gas plants before at that site, and they didn’t go far, this is the biggest, and most public, and will need mega transmission, BUT LS Power’s Blake Wheatley admitted at the Chisago meeting that they don’t have a plan, don’t have a PPA, don’t have anything but a tax exemption (est. $9-10 million) from legislators who should have known better than to sell out their constituents for nothing, and then after being caught, for a very small “Host Fee.”  At that meeting, Mike Bull said Xcel won’t need any power for a long time, 2016-2017 (and if he’ll admit that at long last, we know it’s really a lot further out).  As with last night’s meeting, at the Chisago meeting there was, despite heavy lobbying and presence of unions like IBEW and Building & Trades, a clear understanding that the LS Power plant is not needed, and that peak demand is down.  Granted LS Power made the mistake of walking into an energy educated community, but even Bob Cupit was surpirsed by the turnout, said he’d never seen such a large crowd, ~500, standing room only in a hockey rink sized room (Also, FYI, Bob stated to the audience that “If citizens feel the system still failed to consider issues, the decision of the PUC can be appealed to the state Court of Appeals.“)

There is a theme.  Minnesota doesn’t need more transmission, and we won’t, in the words of Xcel’s Mikey Bull, need an generation anytime soon.  Am I paraphrasing correctly, Mike? (Duck & cover — the You Tube of that is forthcoming!!!)  The MOES Minnesota_Resource_Assessment is a crock.

Here are the LEC members — it’d be good to contact all of them, and let them know what you think about “need” for generation and transmission, decreasing demand, and CapX 2020 in particular:

http://www.commissions.leg.state.mn.us/lec/members.htm
Here’s Senate member info:
http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/members/index.php?ls=#header
Here’s House member info:
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/members/hmem.asp

And about CapX and eminent domain, contact:

rep.steve.drazkowski [at] house.mn

rep.tim.kelly [at] house.mn

rep. randy.demmer [at] house.mn

Once more with feeling — Get thee to the House Energy and Judiciary Committee meeting:

WEDNESDAY, November 4, 2009
10:00 AM
Joint Meeting of the Energy Finance & Policy Division and Civil Justice Committee
Room: 5 State Office Building
Chairs: Rep. Bill Hilty, Rep. Joe Mullery
Agenda: Informational hearing on HF1182 (Bly) Public service corporation exemptions repealed.