Legalectric

And last night in Rochester, more of the MPCA “Clean Power Plan” listening sessions.  This one was less well attended that Monday’s in Minneapolis, but packed into a much smaller, almost claustrophobic sized room.  Many concerns were raised, in large part because the “Clean Power Plan” remains a mystery — there is no MPCA plan for us to check out and comment on, and the federal Supreme Court put the EPA’s plan on hold.

The MPCA has been meeting with “stakeholders” which is primarily utilities, with a few energy wonks also attending — see this link, and scroll down for meetings and materials:

Clean Power Plan – Rulemaking (and meetings)

A turnout of this size, both last night and the night before, means that yes, people are interested and concerned, and I hope everyone stays in the loop and participates.

Last night at the Urban League, the MPCA held a meeting, a “listening session” about the proposed Clean Power Plan as a prelude to its rulemaking.

TONIGHT IS ANOTHER MEETING:

MPCA Clean Power Plan Listening Session

Wednesday, March 9, 2016

5:30 p.m. – ?  At least 8 p.m.

Cornerstone Plaza Hotel

401 6th Street S.W.

Rochester, MN

The MPCA has been holding ‘listening sessions,” a/k/a meetings, and has info on its site:

Clean Power Plan: Rulemaking in Minnesota

• Clean Power Plan (carbon pollution)
• Clean Power Plan in depth

Here’s the federal plan, now on hold at order of the court:

Clean Power Plan (U.S. EPA)

I very much do like that they’re going forward, despite the federal stay, because it is going to take some time to ramp up efforts.

Here’s the handout I brought to that meeting.  I ran out, only about 1/4 of the room covered, so that means there were at least 80 people there.

Handout-MPCA Public Meeting_Clean Power Plan

On the other hand, there are a lot of things I take issue with.

One thing that’s discouraging to me is that this is called the “Clean Power Plan” but they have not made any attempt to separate out and prohibit burning of garbage and biomass, both very dirty by any definition.  Incineration must be removed from the definition of “renewable.”

Another issue is that they’re NOT going to put together a rulemaking Advisory Committee, as provided by statute.  I asked about this last night and they verified it.

Minn. Stat. §14.101, Subd. 2.  Advisory committees.

Each agency may also appoint committees to comment, before publication of a notice of intent to adopt or a notice of hearing, on the subject matter of a possible rulemaking under active consideration within the agency.

Instead, what they’re doing is gathering the same ol’ same ol’ folks in an informal process, and they’re not going over a proposed rule prior to its being sent to the MPCA head (remember, there is no Citizens Board thanks to certain MN legislators) for release, and when it’s released, it’s too late for substantive changes.  The MPCA was part of the crew, with DNR and EQB, that so badly mangled that silica sand rulemaking (ummmm, whatever became of that, anyway?).  This does not bode well.

So now, on to tonight’s meeting, gotta do some prep.

And yes, that’s Frank “Coal Ash” Kolasch presenting.  What a moniker!

Tonight’s gathering starts at 5:30 p.m. or so with an open house (coffee & cookies), and the presentation and “listening” starts at 6:30 p.m.

MPCA Clean Power Plan Listening Session

Wednesday, March 9, 2016

5:30 p.m. – ?  At least 8 p.m.

Cornerstone Plaza Hotel

401 6th Street S.W.

Rochester, MN

Be there or be square!

This is the Clearbrook – Clearbrook West 115 kV transmission project proposed route.

Comments were due on the scope of environmental review for this project, and here’s what we filed yesterday:

Erie-Bourdeaux Family Revocable Trust – Scoping Comment

It looks like a simple little thing, right?  WRONG!  What’s not readily apparent is that this transmission line is support for the Sandpiper crude oil pipeline, and is dependent on location of a tank farm and pumping station at the northwest terminus of the transmission line, and it’s way, way premature.

Couple of main points:

1. This transmission line is IN ADDITION to an existing 7 pipelines and the Sandpiper pipeline and the Line 3 rebuild all in that corridor, on the northwest end running cross country through wetlands between Erie Lake and Klongerbo Lake!  That’s 9 pipelines and a transmission line all right there in that narrow strip of property.  How much can a family bear?!?!
2. The Sandpiper pipeline is delayed, even the Enbridge proponents admit that:
   

   Enbridge: Sandpiper Pipeline Delayed Until 2019

3. Clearbrook West terminal is NOT permitted and is NOT a done deal, in fact the MPCA says it ought to be in Crookston!

    20148-102081-01_MPCA Comment-Crookston

So why is Minnkota Power pushing for this transmission line now?  Why would they apply for it in 2014?  There’s no need… not now and maybe not ever.

Yesterday was the Scoping Meetings for the Rochester pipeline project, winding around the NW down and around to the SE of town.  There was quite a large turnout at the afternoon session, probably 50 people, but that may have included Commerce staff, etc.

Comments on the Scope (what all should be included) of the environmental review are due by 4:30 p.m. on April 13, 2016:

larry.hartman@state.mn.us

… or by snail mail:

Larry Hartman, Environmental Review Manager

Minnesota Dept. of Commerce

85 – 7th Place East, Suite 500

St. Paul, MN  55101

I was really surprised to learn that Larry Hartman, the Commerce project manager, did NOT know about the Rochester Public Utilities gas plant proposed at the NW terminal of this project!  And I was also surprised to learn that Northern Natural Gas is running a new gas pipeline into the west side of Rochester, to join with this line at the middle purple blob on the west side of the map.

The RPU plant is not exactly a secret, it was an issue in the 2008 CapX 2020 Certificate of Need hearing:

RPU chooses Boldt to build new $62 million plant

A New Generating Station for Rochester

New Rochester Energy Project Approved

Westside Energy EPC

The RPU studies:

2015_Update_RPU_Infrastructure_Study

2005 RPU_34945_Report on the Electric Utility Baseline Strategy for 2005 – 2030_June_2005 (CapX 2020 CoN Exhibit 157)

This is old, old news…

As to the proposed Northern Natural Gas line that’ll connect to this Rochester project, which it appears is part of its “Northern Lights 2017 Expansion” project narrative, in press release-based industry puff pieces, but it’s not on the Northern Lights 2017 Expansion project map or described, other than “Rochester 1D TBS rebuild” and “Rochester branch line” in any of the FERC filings or other documents I can find.

What about safety?  The environmental review document needs to address the burn radius, which is large for such a large and high pressure pipeline:

• Model for Sizing High Consequence Areas Associated With Natural Gas Pipelines
• Safe Separation Distances From Natural Gas Pipelines

This project is in an area where future development could be, should be, expected, and I sure don’t want to see a scenario like that along the natural gas pipeline along, roughly parallel, to Hwy. 14, where cities have platted developments over the pipeline, and where builders have built homes over the pipeline, and people bought those newly constructed homes with pipelines through their yards, and worse, Minnesota law does not require disclosure for newly constructed homes.

Minn. Stat. 513.54, Subd. 10

Platting new subdivisions over a natural gas transmission pipeline should be criminal… and yet I see another such scenario developing.

Yes, up in Clearbrook last night for the DoC EERA’s Public Meeting for Scoping of environmental review (lite) for the Minnkota Clearbrook – West Clearbrook 115 kV Transmission Project.

For the full scoop on this project go to PUC’s Docket SEARCH HERE, and search for docket 14-665, and for the backstory, dig up the Sandpiper dockets, 13-473 and 13-474, a very large undertaking.

Caesar Panit of the PUC and David Birkholz of Commerce hosted last night’s meeting:

Last night’s meeting was quite well attended for such a short transmission line, just 5+ miles, but that’s likely because of its connection to the Sandpiper pipeline project.  It’s an important project to Enbridge, and one that should be closely scrutinized because as of this point, it’s timed exactly backwards, and shouldn’t even be proposed until Sandpiper is permitted and we know where it’s going to go, and whether there will even be a “Clearbrook West” terminal.

Timed backwards?  Yes… This project is way premature, because it’s transmission to power the Sandpiper new “Clearbrook West” terminal and pumping station, one which is just starting back into the intense environmental review of a court ordered EIS (yes, finally Minnesota appellate court agrees that an EIS must be completed prior to issuance of Certificate of Need), and it is not safe to presume that the new “Clearbrook West” terminal is going to be there given the MPCA Comments and proposal of Crookston as a logical alternative:

20148-102081-01_MPCA Comment- Crookston Terminal Location

But that’s not all that’s interesting… in the Application, Minnkota had a brief mention of RUS, the USDA’s Rural Utility Service.  And I had one of those flashes, having dealt with RUS on CapX 2020, and now the Dairyland Q-1 “upgrade” project through Onalaska.  So I asked them about it, on the record, and learned that yes, RUS is financing this project, that yes, there will be environmental review, likely an “environmental report,” and that there might be a public comment period on it if USDA’s RUS chooses, and when I asked whether Dennis Rankin is handling it at RUS, he said, “Yes, that’s the guy!”  It is a very small world, and as we say in transmission, “It’s all connected.”

Minnkota is kind of dodgy about what this project is for, saying repeatedly it’s for “one customer” but given the terminal at the proposed Clearbrook West area where Sandpiper’s new Clearbrook West terminal would go, it’s a DOH!

Here’s the site from Sandpiper’s Application, Appx G.3 Facility Drawings_01.30.13, showing it next to Klongerbo Lake (keeping in mind MPCA’s recommendation of the Crookston alternative):

Other things to note:

Enbridge pushes back timeline for pipeline projects

2015 Biennial Transmission Projects Report-selected

They say they want to avoid wetlands… but in the “cross country” area near the “Clearbrook West” terminal location, it’s all wetlands, and in the terminal area itself, it’s wetlands, not suitable for a pipeline terminal.  What are they thinking?

There’s lots of info to inform the scoping decision, and for sure Commerce and the PUC will get this info!