Legalectric

A quick reminder:

Many thanks to the “little birdie” who brought this decades old report to my attention:

Rulemaking – Legislative Auditor-93-04-1

Yes, this is a report from the Minnesota Legislative Auditor from 1993, and if you read it, you’ll see little has changed is so many years…  The issues raised are issues we’ve been raising in the Public Utilities Commission rulemaking for Minn. R. Ch. 7849 and 7850 (Certificate of Need and Siting/Routing).  AAAAAAAAAAAACK!

For example, from the Summary:

• Encouraging agencies to negotiate rules before formally proposing them has made the formal public notice-and-comment process mandated by the APA less meaningful; and

• Since there are no requirements or guidelines governing the negotiation process, those people selected to help an agency draft rules have an unfair advantage over those who are not asked to participate.

One unintended consequence of negotiated rulemaking is that the public participation process mandated by the APA has become less important because the content of rules is largely decided during the negotiation phase. As a result, by the time a rule is formally published in the State Register with a request for public comments, an informal agreement between an agency and parties to the negotiation may already have been reached. Those groups and individuals not consulted often are left out. Nearly 70 percent of the affected parties who responded to our survey said they hear about rules too late for their input to make a difference. People who live outside the Twin Cities area were much more likely to feel unable to influence the rulemaking process and to express dissatisfaction with agency rulemaking performance generally.

For example, in the PUC Rulemaking for 7849 and 7850 (PUC Docket 12-1246), it’s been an over two-year-long process, and few are showing up anymore.  We weigh in, some things are taken into account in the drafts, and then that disappears from the next draft.  How can it feel like anything but a colossal waste of time?  Yet if we weren’t there, the utilities would get everything they want.  And as with the utility Certificate of Need and Siting/Routing processes, rulemaking has the same notice and public participation problems.  It’s all the same, deja vu all over again.

… and also from the report …

Furthermore, the rule negotiation process is not part of the official rulemaking record nor subject to statutory controls or legal review that would guarantee equal access. Therefore, it can easily be dominated by those groups and organizations with more resources. In the absence of formal guidelines or standards, agency practices vary, and some agencies are better than others at obtaining broad-based input.

We also conclude that:

• The formal public notice mechanisms may be inadequate to ensure timely notice and meaningful participation in rulemaking; and

• The prohibition of “substantial changes” after rules are proposed is often misunderstood by agency staff and may inhibit them from incorporating public comments made through official mechanisms.

Does this sound familiar?

Once more with feeling:  … the rule negotiation process is not part of the official rulemaking record nor subject to statutory controls or legal review that would guarantee equal access. Therefore, it can easily be dominated by those groups and organizations with more resources.

So what is the bottom line of this report?

Therefore, we recommend that:

The Legislature should consider amending the Administrative Procedure Act to require that a “notice of regulatory action” be published in the State Register and mailed to all affected parties when an agency begins drafting a rule.

We also recommend that:

• The Legislature should consider amending the Administrative Procedure Act to require that agencies maintain a “rulemaking docket” that contains an up-to-date listing of the status of existing rules and impending rulemaking actions, to be submitted annually to the Legislature.

The recommendations we make are designed to revitalize the formal rulemaking process, ensure more equitable access to agencies at a time when comments can reasonably be considered, and strengthen public accountability over agency rules. We think that replacing the current “notice to solicit outside opinion,” which is published for 62 percent of all rules, with a mandatory “notice of regulatory action” will not represent an undue burden on agencies. The current notice is not widely distributed and does not contain enough information to enable interested parties to respond. Therefore, we recommend that the new notice should contain more information about the rule and the process to be used in drafting it, and that it should receive wider distribution than the current notice. A mandatory rulemaking docket, to be submitted to the Legislature and made available to the public upon request, should help the Legislature monitor rulemaking and provide better oversight.

Also, we recommend the following additional changes to the Administrative Procedure Act:

• Rules not adopted within 18 months of their authorizing legislation should require reauthorization, which would replace the current requirement that new rules be published within 180 days;

• A single definition of “substantial change” should be incorporated into the APA;

• “Regulatory analyses” should be done on rules if requested by the Governor, the Legislative Commission to Review Administrative Rules, a political subdivision, another state agency, or 300 persons; and the current special rule justification requirements relating to agricultural land, small business, and fiscal impacts on local government should be eliminated;

• Agency efforts to notify all people potentially affected by a rule should be made part of the official rulemaking record and subject to external examination during the rules review process;

• Individuals requesting a public hearing should provide their address and phone number;

• Everyone who has requested a hearing should be notified when agencies negotiate to secure withdrawal of hearing requests, and agreements made in negotiations should be made a matter of public record and included in the official rulemaking record;

• Exempt rules should be reviewed for form, statutory authority, need and reasonableness, and consistency with legislative intent; and

• All rules should be reviewed by the Office of Administrative Hearings, thereby eliminating the Attorney General’s role in rules review.

… and …

In addition to changing the APA and other statutes that govern agency rulemaking, we recommend that:

• State agencies involved in rulemaking should make more efforts to broaden public participation in rulemaking.

For example, they should make a greater effort to educate the public about how to receive direct information about rulemaking actions and make greater use of agency-held public hearings or widely publicized public meetings early in the rulemaking process. They should also include circulation of rule drafts and “statements of need and reasonableness” earlier and more widely among all parties affected by rules. Finally, agencies should terminate the negotiation process when it fails to make progress toward resolving issues and either proceed more quickly to an official public hearing, employ the services of a professional negotiator or mediator, or return to the Legislature for guidance.

Adopting these recommendations should shorten the informal process, broaden public input in the early stages of rulemaking, and make rules more responsive to the Legislature.

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:

Upcoming meetings

All of these meetings will be held at the People’s Energy Cooperative (Oronoco, Minn.) and run from 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.

• WebEx Conference Call 9/5/2014 10-noon

• October 1

• November 3

• December 4

This “streamlining” of environmental review marches onward.

COMMENTS ARE DUE TOMORROW!

ONLINE COMMENT FORM HERE

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:

Executive Order 11-32

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:

ONLINE COMMENT FORM HERE

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:

Working Draft of Intent

Based on review of statute and rule, agency staff has developed a working draft of the
intent of environmental review:

Understand the environmental effects of proposed projects in order to promote harmony between human activities and the environment, with consideration of both short and long term social and economic needs of the state.

Principles:
• Providing information for decision makers and project proposers
• Coordination with federal, state and local agencies
• Public involvement in decision making
• Efficiency in process

With this as working draft of intent agency staff believe the original intent of environmental review is just as valid today as it was first envisioned by the legislature in the 1970s. One significant difference between the 1970s and today is the “information” that is available, needed, and desired for achieving harmony between human activities and the environment. The information and technology available is much greater today, but there is also a better understanding of the complexity of environmental systems and the challenges with predicting and implementing harmony with human activities.

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!

Last night, “Red Wing 20/20” had a “Community Forum” about frac sand mining.  Red Wing 20/20 is an entity formed by the Red Wing Port Authority, and from its Red Wing page:

Red Wing 2020’s goal is to develop a community vision to improve residents’ quality of life and promote economic growth.

“Promote economic growth.”  That’s a phrase I don’t like because it usually means “promote economic growth” no matter what the impacts are.

The program was introduced by Pam Gorman, she’s the chair of Red Wing 20/20, and that gets my red flags up given she’s Xcel Energy,.  Mayor Dennis Eagan played a part as well, members of Red Wing 20/20 are appointed by the Mayor, and he’s a lobbyist for some pretty nefarious entitites (google “Altria”).  Oh my!

Presenters:

Frac Sand Operations in Minnesota—History and Outlook—Heather Arends, DNR

Applicable State Regulations—Environmental Permits—Wendi Turri, MPCA

Transport Issues—Dave Christianson, MnDOT

Frac Sand Operations: Public Health Concerns—Silica Toxicity—Hillary Carpenter, MDH

Other Tools for Addressing New Operations—Environmental Review—Bob Patton, EQB

I had a flyer to pass, because I want those concerned with frac sand issues to weigh in on the gutting of the EQB, started by Pawlenty and gang, and which Gov. Dayton joined with his E.O. 11-32.  There was an EQB meeting recently about this, with a frac sand agenda item afterwards, and the frac sand people who were there just sat there, didn’t say a peep, as the EQB heard public comments on their plans!  Come on, folks, this affects you and your project!  Show up before it’s too late!

Executive Order 11-32

Here’s my flyer, urging people to attend the public meetings and Environmental Congress, to contact Gov. Dayton (click here!), and to contact legislators.

Handout – RW 2020 Forum

We missed the introduction, Heather Arends, DNR, and Wendi Turri from MPCA.

It was weird, mostly because the guy from the DOT, Dave Christianson, who was speaking when we got there, he was to talk about “Transport Issues” instead was in promotional mode, and even said that sand isn’t a health problem.  WHAT???  That went far beyond his area.  But he also said that he’s a friend of a guy who has a frac sand mine on his land in Wisconsin… hmmmmm…

Hillary Carpenter, from the Dept. of Health, was excellent, clearly knew what he was talking about, openly noting that this was something there wasn’t a lot of information about, but that it IS a health hazard.

Bob Patton, EQB. explained Environmental Review, pretty realistically, the purpose, scope and limits and also about Generic EIS and how that works (Other Tools for Addressing New Operations???  EH?  Should have been in the “Applicable State Regulations” part.  It’s not separate, and it’s applicable regulation.) Patton  brought up the Environmental Congress as something people should participate in.  YEAAAA!  The EQB once was a working entity, but now it’s been gutted so severely, with duties shuffled elsewhere, worst case was power plant siting going over to Commerce, what does Commerce have to do with environmental review for transmission?  So that helped lend some oomph to my flyers, which the organizers didn’t want me to pass out during the program, said I  had to wait until they called a break because they were running behind, I declined, “I’m not going to be delaying anything!” and passed them out during speaker changes.  I know, it’s such revolutionary stuff, info about the Environmental Congress and the meeting schedule.

With the Governor’s push to redefine the intent of environmental review, and with the budget cuts that have neutered agencies, I’m not feeling hopeful that frac sand will get the vetting it needs.

Now’s the time to weigh in on the importance of ROBUST and THOROUGH environmental review!  Public Meetings soon:

November 27 – Rochester, Wood Lake Meeting Center 9:30am – 12:00pm

November 27 – Bloomington, Normandale Community College 6:30pm – 9:00pm

November 28 – Duluth, Lake Superior College 5:30pm – 8:00pm

December 10 – Worthington, Worthington High School 3:30pm – 6:00pm

December 12 – St. Cloud, Stearns County Service Center 5:30pm – 8:00pm

December 14 – Moorhead, Minnesota State University 3:00pm – 5:30pm

More on the Environmental Congress page.