EQB “Streamlining” Comments Due!
January 14th, 2013
This “streamlining” of environmental review marches onward.
COMMENTS ARE DUE TOMORROW!
I’d guess that the Gov. got an earful of what the people thought of his idea to … well… to… see E.O. 11-32, with an apparent intent to gut, slice and dice – the people don’t like it one bit:
Meetings were held, comments were given, but the only thing presented to comment on, and about which comments were directed, was the “Environmental Report Card.” But there also was a report about “Improving Environmental Review” and “Environmental Coordination and Governance.” Not one word was said by the meeting facilitators about these two reports, reports that were “approved” by the EQB before these meetings were even held! Great, just great.
Here were a few of my comments at the time, which I’ll be sending in, in technicolor:
Links to the EQB Environmental Review documents:
- Evaluation and Recommendations for Improving Environmental Review
- Recommendations for Environmental Governance and Coordination
- Minnesota Environment and Energy Report Card
At the meeting, I’d asked when comments were due, and the response, after they all looked at each other, was “anytime before the Environmental Congress (sometime in March, still no date disclosed).
Now, I hear there’s a deadline of January 15. It’s not on the EQB calendar, and it’s buried on the “Environmental Congress” page. Here is that deadline and also a form to make online comments:
Click HERE for the EQB’s “Resource” page.
Note there’s a “Calendar” on the Resource Page, above Click on that CALENDAR and note that there is no mention of any deadline for comments.
Please read the two reports with something of substance (the report card is “fluff” at best):
- Evaluation and Recommendations for Improving Environmental Review
- Recommendations for Environmental Governance and Coordination
What’s most important about these is that they’ve backed off from some of the language of the draft reports, the “eliminate regulation” mantra is not so frenetic. The charge for these reports was:
1. Evaluate and make recommendations on how to improve environmental review
2. Evaluate and make recommendations for improved environmental governance and
coordination
This is the part I find disturbing — tell me, how does this relate to the charge:
The elements of the evaluation directed by EQB included:
- Look at the original intent of environmental review and consider if circumstances in Minnesota have changed such that a fundamental change in the original intent is needed.
It also claims that:
The intent of this draft report is to provide a transparent depiction of the process
that was used to develop recommendations and allow for broad public review of the
recommendations.
Where’s the “broad public review” of this report? There is NONE! It’s up to us, folks, to go over this and review it and comment on it, because so far, “broad public review” hasn’t been happening.
The part that is most disturbing to me is the way they’re trying to reframe “intent.” I don’t know where this came from, E.O. 11-32 says not one word about “intent” of environmental review — that’s a legislative mandate from decades ago. Who wrote this? Was it our good friend Charlie Peterson who wrote it, the one who facilitated these meetings, the one who facilitated the CapX 2020 Task Forces so abysmally, going far afield of the charge? Where does the writer of this report get any direction or authority to rewrite legislation, legislative history, and redefine the intent of environmental review?
Here’s what’s in the “final” report, p. 5-6, approved by the EQB on November 14, 2012:
What’s wrong with that? Take a closer look. The problem is the part about “consideration of both short and long term social and economic needs of the state.” Environmental review is to look at impacts, to provide information, and it is not about “consideration of both short and long term social and economic needs of the state.” Environmental review has never done a thorough cost/benefit analysis. Social and economic impacts are supposed to be addressed in environmental review, but “NEEDS” — let’s talk about what the social “needs” of the state are, and let’s talk about what the economic “needs” of the state are. Who decides what a social or economic “need” is, and what weight to give it? If this report is any indication, we’re in trouble. Look in Appendix D at the weights given to the groups, and you’ll see that in the identical categories, when asked to pick the most important issues, some groups get more votes than others. Whose opinion counts more? Look at their Appendix D to see.
Send in your comments on the studies, let them know you’re commenting on the studies and then tell them what you have to say, and note that something this important does indeed require a “broad public review.” At least, that’s this broad’s opinion!
Dayton’s “Environmental Review”
December 1st, 2012
Gov. Mark Dayton rolled out the plan early in his term — GUT environmental review and protection. What do Minnesotans think? This week we got a chance to tell him.
Surprise! The first meeting about the state’s environmental review was standing room only, when we got there a line started at the door going back and winding in. They’d supposedly expected 30-40 but got about 200, 175 signed in and I’d bet quite a few didn’t. Keep in mind that this was a meeting held at 9:30 a.m. on a weekday. Suzanne found a spot with just enough room for us to stand. As it was getting started, I noticed, DUH, that there was a white board behind me, so because there was no designated way to make comments other than holler, well, of course I did that too, particularly regarding FUNDING, because there was no mention of funding and how all the agencies are hurting to the point of being unable to regulate, anyway, a few of my comments (click photo for larger view):
There were meetings this week, and there are more the week of December 10 — SHOW UP AND LET THEM KNOW WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THE STATE’S JOB ON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
December 10 – Worthington, Worthington High School 3:30pm – 6:00pm
I’ve posted before about Gov. Dayton’s brown environmental initiatives — right off the bat he muzzled and prodded MPCA and DNR to ram permits through:
And then he announced plans to “streamline” environmental review, and we all know what “streamline” means”
So at these meetings ostensibly about “environmental review” we were funneled into a “multiple guess” exercise about the “Environmental Report Card” and nothing about “Improvement of Environmental Review” or “EQB Governance and Coordination” which were reports that, in addition to the “Environmental Report Card” were approved by the EQB on November 14, 2012. There was a “comment” opportunity at the EQB, but there were maybe 5 people who commented, utterly ineffective solicitation.
EARTH TO MARS! With the EQB approving those reports November 14, BEFORE the public meetings, there was pretty much ZERO input into those reports. Although it’s heartening to see that there’s been some pull-back from the overt gutting of the EQB laid out in the draft report, and maybe, MAYBE, pull back from reframing the whole intent of environmental review, it’s a problem where the fix is in and where the important policy documents are done before we’re invited to join the game. Thanks, guys…
Here are the reports:
- Evaluation and Recommendations for Improving Environmental Review
- Recommendations for Environmental Governance and Coordination
- Minnesota Environment and Energy Report Card
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, someone like Bill Grant, formerly Izaak Walton League, now Dayton’s Deputy Commissioner in charge of Energy Facility Permitting, the guy who facilitated the CapX 2020 transmission buildout, and who promoted coal gasification, he has no business being involved in siting of utility permits. He has an egregious conflict of interest, having been part of energy project promotional efforts, and needs to be fired. Here’s Grant eing interviewed before the program started:
At two recent frac sand mining meetings in Red Wing and Wabasha, I handed out at least 270 flyers, , posted info on this blog and sent info out on lists. I’m hoping that had something to do with so many turning out. Frac sand was a major topic, I really stressed the need to fund the state’s regulatory agencies so they can do their job, and others way over across the room were not happy with how the discussion was an exercise in control of discussion. It’s safe to say that they got an earful.
Rep. Denny McNamara came in and worked his way back to a tiny open spot by us, he ended up next to Alan, and Alan quietly said hello and noted that they’d first met at a meeting in Cottage Grove regarding the 3M incinerator, and he gives Alan a nasty look and makes a gratuitous snide comment about “Oh, did you get a haircut?” and looks at the back of his head. EH? Alan said something in his oh so nice way, and I piped up from behind, “At least he doesn’t dye his!”
Denny McNamara’s trainer better put a muzzle on him. That guy is supposed to be representing the people in his district, and in that case he represented the interests of 3M, notorious polluter of the water and air, and he has the nerve to be a defensive jerk when there’s no need to be. If mere mention of meeting him at a hearing regarding the 3M incinerator elicits that brand of obnoxiousness, oh my, he must be guilty of more offensive rolling to corporate interests than suspected!
A google pops up this article right at the top:
Rep. Denny McNamara tonight plans to take an axe to a swath of proposed environmental projects that are paid for by Minnesota Lottery money.
McNamara, R-Hastings, is planning to initiate a challenge to about $8 million worth of projects that were previously recommended by the Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCCMR). The total bill recommends $52 million in projects that are paid over a two-year period out of the Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund, which is built up by Lottery proceeds.
Check out that post… Hey Denny, how about addressing the extreme environmental issues around Hastings? So glad he’s been ousted as Chair of the House Environment Committee.
Ellen Anderson’s Confirmation Hearing
May 13th, 2011
This is worth a watch…
I’ve been receiving a lot of emails about the upcoming hearings, now this has happened and emails are coming in about it.
She has a good handle on it, the job, the role, and she’s been on energy issues f-o-r-e-v-e-r. I’ve just put it on, and she is sounding nervous, with reason, given the tone of some of what I’ve been hearing.
Now she’s got a story about Koppendrayer and Pugh, where LeRoy told Tom that this was not the legislature and he didn’t have to vote with the chair, Tom proceeded, and LeRoy then said, “You don’t HAVE to vote AGAINST the Chair EVERY TIME!”
Right now, she’s addressing questions from Sen. John Howe, from here in Red Wing, but he’s asking about things that are before the Commission right now, which she cannot address, it’s like asking a judge in confirmation hearing about issues before the court, she can’t go there… and from the sound of it, she’s not real familiar with the Goodhue Wind case, where the statute does allow County regulation.
Explaining differences… “You can’t just shoot off your mouth like I could as a Senator.”
Sen. Howe is now addressing “personal bias” and I wonder if he knows about her role in limiting nuclear generation and nuclear waste in Minnesota?!?! And balanced with that is her role in putting nuclear waste “in Goodhue County.”
And now a question about repealing the coal moratorium. HELLO, where do these folks think that there’s a need for a coal plant? She’s talking about generation and transmission planning, decreased demand (too weak on that, she should have the specifics). They’re wanting answers to questions like “What would be the circumstances for the public interest to add a new coal plant?” Unreal… no understanding that there’s no need. Sen. Metzen is saying “we used to think we were 5,800-6,000MW short and now, I don’t think the need is there.” Well DUH. I’ve been providing info to the Senate and House Energy Committees for so long about need and lack thereof, how is it that so many haven’t gotten it through their heads that there is NO NEED!
Sen. Scott Dibble is now referrring to a facility proposed, can’t tell if it’s Big Stone or Mesaba, probably Mesaba, “a facility that there were questions about.”
Sen. Doug Magnus: “What are your thoughts on transmission… how are we going to move this energy around where we need it?” There’s a number of transmission cases coming up before us… PUC has decided the first of the CapX lines, that line is intended to help support renewables. Related to that… one thing that’s been interesting, because there’s been transmission gaps, and logjams in recent years, more of the wind projects have been located closer in to the metro area… as we site more of those transmission lines… that will help bring wind farm siting more back to the high speed wind areas that are more rural… not quite as much contention. I did carry bill in 2005 to allow CapX utilities to get cost recovery to build out transmission…
(gotta get back to work!)