Legalectric

Thanks to the STrib’s Libor Jany for posting the Statement of Probable Cause for Allen Scarsella.  The four are Scarsella, Joseph Backman, Nathan Gustavsson, and Daniel Macey.  Hennepin Co. Atty. Freeman’s press conference starts soon.

It looks like all four will be charged.  I’m very glad to see the County Attorney handling this quickly.  I believe they’re also looking at whether to charge this as a hate crime.  Given all the video and online threads, it’d be pretty hard to show it wasn’t a hate crime.

Probable Cause – Scarsella

From Reuters:

Allen Scarsella, 23, who prosecutors said in a complaint had admitted to shooting five protesters, was charged with one count of second-degree riot while armed and five counts of second-degree assault.

Joseph Backman, 27; Nathan Gustavsson, 21; and Daniel Macey, 26, were each charged with second-degree riot in the Nov. 23 late night shooting that left five demonstrators with wounds that were not life-threatening.

This is progress, a start.

From the press conference (close, but not necessarily verbatim):

“These are sick people…”

“These four have been in custody… we believe there may be another, and that’s why this is ongoing.”

“If you’re a racist, you’re a racist, and that’s just not acceptable.”

“For people to talk about about their fellow human beings in that manner is simply not acceptable.”

“First appearance is tomorrow, we’ve asked for half a million dollars for Scarsella, and for a quarter million for the others.”

Here we go again, this year’s Power Plant Siting Act Annual Hearing.

Public Utilities Commission (PUC) Docket Number: E999/M-15-785

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) Docket Number: 60-2500-32901

Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2015

Time: 9:30 a.m.

Location: Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, Large Hearing Room, 121 7th Place East, Suite 350, Saint Paul, MN 55101

Bad weather? Find out if a meeting is canceled. Call (toll-free) 1-855-731-6208 or 651-201-2213 or visit mn.gov/puc

Here are some prior dockets (to access the entire docket, individual comments, etc., go to :

2000 Summary of Proceedings

2000 Report EQB

2001 Summary of Proceedings

2001 Report EQB

2002 Summary of Proceedings

2002 Report to EQB

2003 Summary of Proceedings

2003 Report to EQB

2004 Summary of Proceedings

2004 Report to EQB

2005 Report to PUC

2006 Report to PUC – Docket 06-1733

2007 Report to PUC – Docket 07-1579

2008 Report to PUC – Docket 08-1426

2009 Report to PUC – Docket 09-1351

2010 Report to PUC – Docket 10-222

2011 Report to PUC – Docket 11-324

2012 Report to PUC – Docket 12-360

2013 Report to PUC – Docket 13-965

2014 Summary Comments– Docket 14-887

Tomorrow, the Chapter 7829 Rulemaking is going to the Commission, for approval of the FINAL rules.  This rulemaking has been going on formally for over two years now in Docket 13-24 (go to NEW SEARCH and search for this docket).

Overland 7829 Comment Nov 18 2015

PUC Staff BriefingPapers_201511-115619-01

FINAL_Rules 7829_201511-115691-01

And some history…   I’ve been concerned about this chapter for a long while, and submitted a Petition for Rulemaking over FOUR YEARS ago.  Apparently that was filed in the trash:

Overland Petition for Rulemaking-7829

And prior posts:

Hell Creek State Park, Montana, circa 1966

Comments on the Hell Creek State Park Master Site & Management Plan – Draft_10-28-15 are due November 25, 2015.  They’re looking at choices to address the serious overcapacity use of the park, and to determine what to do when the “no-cost lease agreement” with the Army Corps of Engineers expires in 2021.  At this point, they’re wanting to address site infrastructure needs, make priority improvements and continue management of site and concession facility under a new contract with USACE. Send Comments, labeled as “Hell Creek State Park – Comments” to:

Montana State Parks

1420 East 6th Ave

PO Box 200701

Helena, MT  59620-0701

or online: http://stateparks.mt.gov/news/publicNotices/board/pn_0012.html Decades ago on a family camping trip, we went to Hell Creek State Park, and it was stunning in its vast austerity.  It was on the bank of the Fort Peck Reservoir, the dam being part of our infrastructure tour that summer, and it was so bleak, hot, and dry, I wondered how people survived out there. Here’s the one campsite now with a tree! We had to drive this intensely bumpy dirt road from Jordan, the nearest town, about 26 miles away, and it took a LONG time.  When we got there, we were the only campers, and were warmly greeted by the ranger, who showed us around, warned us about the cactus and said to be careful what shoes we wore because those spines could come right up through flimsy tennis shoes!  He also displayed his day’s work, he’d been out shooting rattlesnakes that day, and had half a flour sack full of dead rattlesnakes.   I don’t remember a beach, though there must have been a designated swimming area, and for sure there would have been a boat launch.  What I do remember of the reservoir, other than the dam, was an old wagon, the wooden kind, with a bench seat, the bench sticking up out of the water, which reminded me of what was probably lurking underneath the water, whatever was left when they flooded the river valley. I’ve wanted to go back there, and now with the camper, it’s on the agenda (let’s hear it for online reservations with photos!).  And in looking at the park, I found this Plan, and it presents some interesting issues, ranging from dealing with outfitters who direct clients to the park and use it as a base; moving to increased online reservations and a reservation only system; dealing with water and sewage issues, fish cleaning waste; and campground improvements to water, sanitary sewer system, electrical and cell service (there is NO cell service in the area). If you’re a camper, fisher, hunter, check out this plan and let them know what you think!      

Last week there was a large info dump from the DOE. Environmental Impact Statements are rolling through the Dept. of Energy’s Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, one for the Plains & Eastern Clean Line (see BLOCK Clean Line) and its ; another for the Great Northern Transmission Line (see Not-so-Great Northern Transmission Line)  They’re in different departments at this office, “Clean Line” is a “Section 1222” review and the “Not-so-Great Northern” is a Presidential Permit application.

Here’s the Record of Decision schedule (click for larger version):

And the full DOE EIS schedule (they’ve not yet released the November schedule):

Key EIS Chart – October 2015

• Record of Decision expected 1/16/2016.  The Clean Line project has no associated state permitting and review process, because the applicant was rejected by the State of Arkansas as a utility, and because they’re not a utility, they’re not eligible for a state permit.  To make things more complicated, the Section 1222 review is something new, there are no rules, and it’s a financing law, and that is all (though Clean Line wants it to be so much more!).  The DOE held scoping meetings and hearings in Texas and Tennessee, and in multiple locations across Oklahoma and Arkansas, but these were only about environmental review, and not the Section 1222 issues or anything else.  They’ve not scheduled hearings, there’s no evidentiary hearing, nothing, despite a specific request.  Comment letters are in Appendix Q, and there are THREE of them!   They listed on the comments the FEIS sections where comments are addressed.  What a pain to go back and forth, where the sections are not clearly identified on the links.

• Record of Decision “uncertain.”  What does that mean?  The “Not-so-Great” Northern Transmission Project is before the DOE because the applicants Minnesota Power and Manitoba Hydro (in the U.S., it’s just Minnesota Power, doing the lifting for both) have applied for a Presidential Permit, essentially permission to market power between Canada and the US.  In tandem with this DOE Presidential Permit, MP has applied for a state Certificate of Need and Routing Permit.  Hearings are over, briefs are in (there are NO intervenors in this docket), and now we’re waiting for the ALJ Recommendation.  Then exceptions to the Recommendation, and on the the PUC.  that’s probably why the RoD date is “uncertain,” because there’s the state agency that they’re dealing with.

So there are procedural differences, timing differences.  But it sure is a lot to wade through.  Plus the PolyMet FEIS just came out.