WI Petition for Rulemaking – Solar siting rules are needed
December 7th, 2018
Photo of DOE project in Alamosa, under 30 MW
There’s a 300MW solar project proposed for southern Wisconsin, in Iowa County. Thing is, as with Minnesota and large wind (PUC denies Reconsideration re: Wind Rulemaking), there are no siting rules for solar in Wisconsin! Really, no rules! Typically thus far, solar projects are 2-10 MW. This one proposed is 300MW! Central station power to put it mildly.
Not only are there no siting rules, but there is no Environmental Impact Statement required for a project covering 3,500 acres!
WHAT?!?!
So on behalf of Jewell Jinkins Intervenors, I’ve just filed this Petition for Rulemaking to get them going on solar rules.
Petition for Rulemaking_JJI_Solar_FINAL_Signed
We shall see what, if anything, they do.
RUS EIS is released for Cardinal-Hickory Creek Transmission
December 3rd, 2018
It’s out, the USDA’s RUS EIS for Cardinal-Hickory Creek transmission project:
Draft Environmental Impact Statement – November 2018
From the RUS Notice, how to send in comments and list of public meetings:
Webcast of Line 3 deliberations at PUC
June 27th, 2018
LISTEN HERE: http://minnesotapuc.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?event_id=1856
It’s pretty disturbing. Today started out with the Commission asking Intervenors to pick their least awful route option. WHAT?!?! That is NOT how a line is chosen. I think they’re using that to build a “record” (NOT!) for whatever decision they may make.
As the Commission was reminded, the Commission is to choose a route, only AFTER a Certificate of Need is granted, based on the criteria in the statutes and rules. Commissioner Sieben turned to a pretty manipulative attempt at burden of proof shift, looking for a statement to get them off the hook. NO!
NO? That’s correct. This is the Commission’s job, and if there’s no need, deny the application. If there’s no acceptable route, deny the application. The ALJ made a Recommendation, and the Commission has to deal with that.
Then there’s the push about System Alternative SA-04. That route would go right through my Association of Freeborn County Landowners’ community, and AFCL filed an Exception regarding that SA-04 route:
Line 3 – Exceptions to ALJ’s Report
Sieben keeps saying it’s a “difficult decision.” Yeah, it is.
Lipschultz keeps asking which alternative is least objectionable. NO. JUST STOP THAT!
Dakota Access – Notice of Intent for Environmental Impact Statement
January 18th, 2017
Yes, here it is, the Federal Register link, the Notice of Intent for an Environmental Impact Statement for the Dakota Access Pipe Line, a/k/a DAPL:
Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
Scoping comments are due by February 20, 2017. By mail, and they ask that you include your name, return address, and “NOI Comments, Dakota Access Pipeline Crossing” on the first page of your written comments:
Gib Owen
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works
108 Army Pentagon
Washington, DC 20310-0108
By email to gib.a.owen.civ@mail.mil – use Subject: NOI Comments, Dakota Access Pipeline Crossing
They say they want comments about these issues, but don’t limit your input:
(1) Alternative locations for the pipeline crossing the Missouri River;
(2) Potential risks and impacts of an oil spill, and potential impacts to Lake Oahe, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s water intakes, and the Tribe’s water, treaty fishing, and hunting rights; and
(3) Information on the extent and location of the Tribe’s treaty rights in Lake Oahe.
What does this mean? Well, they’re looking for a way to ram it through, looking for “alternative locations for the pipeline crossing the Missouri River.” They’re probably wanting to avoid any consideration of the entire project, avoid consideration of connected actions here, and the potential for and high risk of impacts downriver. How about need? I’ll bet they don’t want to consider whether there is need for this line, and what it means if there is increased oil output in the region, the impacts of continued extraction! Broaden the scope! From the Notice: “The range of issues, alternatives, and potential impacts may be expanded based on comments received in response to this notice and at public scoping meetings.” So get to work!
Gov. Dayton rolls and caves again!
November 17th, 2011
O… M… D!
Gov. Mark Dayton has done it again, apparently looking to leave a legacy of being one of the most environmentally harmful Governors in Minnesota history.
And to think he’s a shep guy…
What’s this all about? Well, for example, first there was his roll and cave on MPCA and DNR permitting, “streamlining” or gutting, as the case may be, beating the Republicans and their legislative agenda to the punch:
Dayton “streamlines” for corporate interests!
And then adding insult to injury:
Walton’s Bill Grant – Deputy Commissioner of Energy?
Now, by Executive Order, he does it again, this time to the EQB:
Executive Order 11-32
Check it out:
By November 15, 2012, the EQB shall evaluate and make recommendations on how to improve environmental review, given the changes made in Chapter 4, House File 1, and the recommendations contained in the Office of the Legislative Auditor Environmental Review and Permitting Report.
Here’s Chapter 4, House File 1.
And now for the Office of the Legislative Auditor Environmental Review and Permitting Report:
Legislative Auditor’s Report – Environmental Review & Permitting