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

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

 

 

It’s official!

Public Hearing Notice_201610-125793-01

Another update:  Charges HAVE been dropped.  DONE!

UPDATE — not nearly enough:

Monday, October 17, 2016

City of Edina responds to NAACP Minneapolis

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

A black man arrested at 59th & Xerxes in Edina for walking while black, in the street because the sidewalks are under construction, and charged with disorderly conduct and pedestrian failure to obey a traffic signal.  His fear is palpable, and his frustration at the cop’s actions are reasonable given that he was grabbed by Lt. T.F. Olson while walking around the construction area.  What’s a Lieutenant doing arresting a guy walking down the street? What would have happened had this not been filmed?  And look at his approach of the woman with the camera, look at his stare, his request for her name and address — that’s a blatant attempt at intimidation, not OK.  Kudos that she continued filming and stood up, gave her name and address.  And thank you, thank you, thank you, for making this video public.

Larnie Thomas was arrested for violation of Minnesota Statutes 169.21; 169.02; and 609.72
. Click on statute number for link.

FYI:

Apparently, in May 2014, Edina’s chief of police told the City’s Transportation Commission that he did not consider walking in the street to be dangerous behavior and would not attempt to cite for minor infractions related to it. (Original document here: http://edinamn.gov/corecode/uploads/document/uploaded_pdfs/corecode_edina/MINUTES%20for%20May%2015,%202014_475.pdf)

That police officer has been around the block, he’s got grey hair and is a Lieutenant, and should know better than to do this.  On seeing the camera, he should have known that his behavior would be public, and where his conscience and training didn’t kick in, the public nature of his actions should have stopped it right there.  But noooooo… and he radios for help, and another unmarked and marked car and plainclothes and uniformed cops show up.  They handcuff him and toss him in the car.  WHAT?!?!

That’s just 1/2 mile from where I grew up at 60th and Oliver.  And if he were on the other side of the street, he would have been in Minneapolis, and Edina cops would have had no jurisdiction.

Comment on the Edina site: http://edinamn.gov/index.php?section=contact-us

Edina City Council members:

Mary Brindle mbrindle@EdinaMN.gov
Mayor James Hovland jhovland@EdinaMN.gov
Kevin Staunton kstaunton@EdinaMN.gov
Bob Stewart rstewart@EdinaMN.gov
Ann Swenson swensonann1@gmail.com

Here’s Lt. Olsen’s contact info — be cool, no threats:
Timothy Olson Lieutenant 952-826-0490 TOlson@EdinaMN.gov

The next open Edina City Council meeting is Tuesday, October 18th at 7PM. 4801 W. 50th Street, Edina.

In the STrib:

Video of Edina police officer confronting a black man goes viral

From Fox9 News, the “full narrative” of police report, and note this part, where he says, “Thomas disregarded my commands, while continuing to walk southbound, into the traffic lane and around a parked vehicle. I noted Thomas’s response to the event to be unusual and extremely confrontational given the simple and basic request for compliance.” Makes no sense, walking away is NOT “extremely confrontational” is it:

Full narrative of police reportOn 10/12/16 at approximately 11:46, I, Lieutenant T. Olson was on duty, in the City of Edina, dressed in plain clothes and driving an unmarked police vehicle. I was driving northbound on Xerxes at west 60th Street. I observed ahead of me, a man, later identified as the defendant, Larnie Thomas, walking southbound on Xerxes in the southbound lane of traffic. I observed there was a new sidewalk on the west side of Xerxes which, with the exception of cut-ins for private property connections to the trunk sidewalk, appeared to be completed. I also observed a paved shoulder, approximately 8-feet wide, on the west side of Xerxes and a sidewalk on the east side of the street. As I drove north in the direction of Thomas, I observed he continued to walk southbound, approximately 1/3 the way into the southbound traffic lane of Xerxes. I observed Thomas`s actions were obstructing southbound vehicular traffic as vehicles slowed to a walking pace while stacking up behind Thomas.

As I neared Thomas, I observed he was wearing headphones over his ears. I watched as several vehicles crossed over the double painted yellow line, into the northbound lane in attempt to drive around Thomas. I observed Thomas look in the direction of the vehicles as they passed him. I observed Thomas move slightly to the right of the traffic lane, then move back to his position in the roadway. Based on these observations, it appeared likely Thomas should have been aware he was in the roadway and causing an obstruction to vehicular traffic. I am aware that Xerxes Ave is a highly traveled feeder street. I believed Thomas was creating a risk to his safety and the others and it was prudent to advise him to get out of the road. I drove north, past Thomas a distance, activated my emergency lights and conducted a U-turn. As I neared Thomas, aware he was wearing headphones,I tapped my squad siren. Thomas didn’t respond.

As I approached closer I again tapped my siren. This time Thomas turned, looked at me, turned back around and continued walking south in the lane of traffic. I again tapped my siren, to which Thomas did not turn, but continued his walk.

I drove around Thomas to a position approximately 15 feet in front of him. I turned and canted my squad to the right in a manner to block Thomas from continuing south in the traffic lane. Thomas walked up to and around the passenger`s side of my squad. Thomas looked at me as he passed, walked south around my squad, back onto the lane of traffic and continued south.

I exited my squad and identified myself as a police officer. I instructed Thomas to get out of the traffic lane. Thomas did not comply and began shouting at me. I again identified myself as a police officer, this time drawing attention to my police badge carried on my left side belt. I provided Thomas multiple instructions including phrases to the effect of; get out of the road, stop and return to me. Thomas disregarded my commands, while continuing to walk southbound, into the traffic lane and around a parked vehicle. I noted Thomas’s response to the event to be unusual and extremely confrontational given the simple and basic request for compliance. I followed after Thomas and continued to instruct him to stop. Thomas did not comply with any of my directives.

I reached Thomas, who had now walked approximately 60` from my original stop location, and grasped his shoulder. As I made contact with Thomas, I could smell the odor of a consumed alcoholic beverage. Thomas began to struggle against my grasp, shout and use profane language. I instructed Thomas to return to my squad.With my grasp on Thomas’s shoulder, I escorted him back to my squad. Thomas continued to struggle and attempt to break free of my grasp. As I reached my squad, Thomas slammed a back-pack he was carrying onto the hood of the squad. I radioed dispatch for assistance.

While waiting for back-up to arrive, Thomas continued struggle against my grasp and began to use very loud and profane language (Fuck, Bull Shit and Shit). I observed several people begin to gather in observation of the event. I observed individuals who appeared to have emerged from their street front homes and an individual who appeared to be filming the event. Thomas`s behavior became more volatile as he spun away from me, removed his shirt and appeared to take an offense stance towards me. I did not attempt to physically engage Thomas further.

Officer Boerger arrived on scene. Thomas was advised he was under arrest and handcuffed without further incident. Officer Piper arrived and Thomas was placed in the rear of her squad. Officer Boerger administered an alcohol breath test (PBT #8) and advised me Thomas`s results were .017.

Thomas was issued a citation (270616213232, MN 169.21, 169.02, 609.72), and, per his request, transported to Southdale Mall where he was released.

Here’s what the City of Edina released yesterday:

City of Edina, MN (Local Government)
20 hrs ·

A video of one of our police officers is circulating online. This incident started several minutes prior to the recording. During that time, our police officer observed a man walking southbound on Xerxes Avenue at West 60th Street in the southbound lane of traffic, though there is a sidewalk on the east side and a sidewalk under construction and a paved shoulder on the west side of the street. Recognizing the risk to the safety of the public, the officer pulled in behind the man with his lights and an audible signal in an attempt to advise him to get out of the roadway. The man, who was wearing headphones, turned and looked at the officer and continued walking in the lane of traffic. The officer then drove in front of the man by approximately 15 feet, to block him from continuing in the southbound lane of traffic. The man deliberately went around the squad car and continued to walk in the lane of traffic. The officer got out of his vehicle and started to follow the man, asking him to get out of the lane of traffic and stop. The man did not stop and was defiant. It was after that point that the recording began. The officer smelled alcohol on the man’s breath during the incident. A breathalyzer later confirmed the presence of alcohol.

As a bystander, it’s your right to film officer interactions. However, it’s important to note that attempting to interact with the officer and/or suspect creates a greater risk to the safety of the officer, suspect and bystanders. Public safety is our first priority. It makes it more difficult for officers to deal with the situation on hand when they are at the same time dealing with the distractions of bystanders.

For more information about this incident, contact the Edina Police Department at 952-826-1610.

Ameren Transmission Company (ATXI) has filed lawsuits in two Missouri counties, Adair and Marion, challenging the county decisions to reject the “Mark Twain” transmission line (isn’t there some copyright or defamation law preventing use of Samuel Clemens’ “name” that way?).

What exactly did the counties do?  Well, the counties need to approve or deny the Mark Twain transmission project, a condition of the Missouri PSC permit for the project, under the terms of the permit:

Adair and Marion Counties said NO!  Ameren Transmission Company seems to think they have no right to say NO!

The actions of the counties sounds reasonable… and Ameren’s pleadings are mostly repeated whining that they were not invited, not notified, and that County Commissioners oppose the Mark Twain transmission line.  GASP!  They even attended a PSC meeting and opposed the line:

Ameren’s position seems to be, “How dare they!”  Ameren, it might be wise to consider who it is that these Missouri County Commissioners represent.  They’re elected officials, and Ameren was not elected to office, and they Commissioners’ job is not to represent Ameren!  DOH!  What a concept!

Here are the pleadings filed by Ameren in Adair and Marion Counties:

Ameren Transmission Co. v. Adair County

Ameren Transmission Company v. Marion County

Kudos to the County Commissioners for standing up!  And a big thanks to attorney Paul Henry for the heads up and forwarding the primary documents — it sure helps to know the whole story!!!

It was a long, long day. Bottom line? Based on the record, and based on acknowledgement of Xcel’s peak demand history, we can shut down Sherco 1 & 2 now without missing it, and by 2025 or so, shut down Prairie Island and not have to pay for significant rehab to keep it running.

Here is the PUC webcast:

Here is my handout, noting the 700-788MW overstatement of peak demand forecast.

Legalectric_Handout_IRP

If you start with Xcel’s 2015 actual peak demand, and extrapolate using the 0.3% annual increase out to 2030, here’s what it looks like (click for larger view):

These are the charts that they’re using, starting with inflated forecasts of 9,409 and 9,442MW for 2016, note how far off the resulting 2030 “forecast” is — it’s 800 – 1,234 MW off!

With the “forecast” that much off, it’s as absurd as the CapX 2020 2.49% annual increase. Staff questioned the forecasts in the Briefing Papers, Commissioner Lange raised forecasts right off the bat, and Commissioner Schuerger claimed it was at least 300 MW off (don’t know where that 300 MW came from). These discrepancies havce been noted, and they should dig deeper, because the numbers used by Xcel do not add up. Were they lying in the SEC filings or are they lying now? Why isn’t Commerce challenging this, given admissions of the existing surplus? This forecast overstatement, plus admission of under-utilization of grid (meaning grid has been overbuilt, DOH, CapX 2020 and MVP projects are not “needed” in any sense) raises a few issues:

1) This misrepresentation is NOW equivalent to at least one coal plant, and by the end of 2030, or by the time presumed for shut down of Sherco 1 and 2, it’s much more than that.

2) This misrepresentation avoids consideration of shut down of Sherco 1 & 2 NOW, and shutdown of Prairie Island at the 2024-2026 time frame, and avoidance of $600-900 million in capital costs, or more, for Prairie Island.

3) This misrepresentation circumvents discussion of the admitted surplus now existing, even Dr. Rakow admitted to that at least twice in Thursday’s discussion. Where there is surplus, they can sell it elsewhere, and that is, after all, the purpose of CapX 2020 and MVP transmission.

Got that? We can shut down Sherco 1 & 2 now without missing it, and by 2025 or so, shut down Prairie Island and not have to pay for significant rehab to keep it running. This is not rocket science. It’s as simple as using actual peak demand as a starting point and not making up numbers as they have been doing.