Source: https://legalectric.org/weblog/date/2016/02/page/2/
Timestamp: 2020-08-09 14:56:19
Document Index: 557238505

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 4', 'art 5', 'art 6', 'art 7']

Legalectric » 2016 » February
New Black Oak/Getty wind project maps
More interesting filings today, these from the Black Oak Getty wind project, the construction plans, and a new noise report. There are also “Environmental Supplements” and other new filings. You can find them all at the PUC’s site — go to SEARCH and search for eDockets 10-1240 or 11-831.
Here are the filings of the Construction Plans:
20162-118362-01_Part 1
20162-118362-03_Part 2
20162-118362-05_Part 3
20162-118362-07_Part 4
20162-118362-09_Part 5
20162-118362-11_Part 6
20162-118362-13_Part 7
I’ve separated out the noise report to make it easier to send around:
Noise Technical Report_ Black Oak Getty Wind Project
And for reference, here are the Minnesota Noise Rules, found in Minn. R. Ch. 7030 — we’re long overdue for a rulemaking for Noise Rules specifically regulating wind noise:
Zip Rail’s dying gasp…
There was a big turn out tonight at Urland Lutheran Church, where at least 100 people interested in the Zip Rail joined Sen. Matt Schmit and DOT Commissioner Charlie Zelle to hash it out.
This project is so “not happening.” The state has pulled its funding, Olmsted County has pulled its funding, and the North American High Speed Rail Group is on its own (with no money).
County puts spike in Zip Rail project
The last “Project Schedule” was published in March, 2015, 11 months ago to the date, and from that, it’s obvious this project is going nowhere, because nothing has happened since:
It seems many people want certainty, want this to END! They want confirmation that this thing is dead and buried and won’t reappear… but that’s not how these things happen. It’s moribund, “lacking in vitality or vigor.” In my humble professional opinion which I voiced at the meeting, based on over 20 years of wrestling with so many ill-advised and pipedream projects, there are two things to do:
Write Comments on the Alternatives Analysis Report and file them with everyone who had any connection with this project, so they’ll put them in the file with the Alternatives Analysis Report, to “inform the record” and be found if it should somehow be resurrected. DOT says to send Comments to: webmaster.dot@state.mn.us
Sen. Matt Schmit says the link for comments should be: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/ziprail/comment-form.html
I would also send copies to:
651-366-3193
daniel.krom@state.mn.us
Praveena Pidaparthi
651-366-3199
Garneth Peterson
651-366-3615
garneth.peterson@state.mn.us
charlie.zelle@state.mn.us
sen.matt.schmit@senate.mn and rep.tim.kelley@house.mn
Put feet up, deep breathe, move on, and keep a casual eye open in case it pops up again.
There’s nothing that can be done to force a more certain resolution, and it requires a bit of trust (and maybe experience with public process?) that it’s stopped, is without funding, and that’s that. Learn to live with it, it’s like a remission diagnosis, because there’s nothing to be gained from spending energy and effort being worried and fretful wondering if it’s going to come back, it’s time to live life.
What’s Chuck Michael going to do now? What could possibly follow the Mesaba Project “pipedream of green and clean” and then this flop called Zip Rail?!?!
Hot off the press, received from the DOT yesterday:
Environmental Impact Statement suspension
MnDOT has announced the suspension of work on the Rochester-Twin Cities Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan and Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (Zip Rail) process that had a Final Scoping Decision Document issued on Jan. 19, 2015.
This project is a voluntary EIS under state environmental regulations. Public funding constraints, as well as private sector actions to undertake a similar project, have led to this decision. As the Responsible Governmental Unit, MnDOT, along with its partner Olmsted County Regional Railroad Authority, determined that the most appropriate step is to suspend the Zip Rail EIS at this time.
MnDOT is also notifying interested individuals and agencies that participated in the environmental review process about the suspension of the EIS.
For more information about Zip Rail in Minnesota, visit MnDOT’s Zip Rail website.
And in the RW bEagle, here’s Alan in the background!
By Michael Brun on Feb 17, 2016 at 12:05 p.m.
CANNON FALLS — State Transportation Commissioner Charlie Zelle fielded a barrage of questions Tuesday night from a packed crowd of southeastern Minnesota residents anxious about proposed high-speed rail projects between the Twin Cities and Rochester.
The Minnesota-based North American High Speed Rail Group contacted MnDOT about a year ago to pitch its idea for rights to study and build a privately funded line connecting the two metropolitan centers, Zelle said Tuesday in his opening remarks.
“It was frankly a little vague, and we were very reluctant,” Zelle said of the proposal.
MnDOT announced Jan. 27 it had issued permits to NAHSR to study the feasibility of an elevated high-speed rail line following the Highway 52 corridor — which Zelle said should form a clearer picture of what the company envisions.
MnDOT and Olmsted County Regional Railroad Authority meanwhile suspended study on the public Zip Rail project last month due to a lack of funds and “legislative appetite,” Zelle said.
Filed in Disasters, Legislative & Policy, Political Sense (non?), Rail
More Clean Power Plan meetings announced
Today the MPCA announced several new public “listening sessions” regarding the Clean Power Plan. There are no rules yet proposed, but there have been many “stakeholder” meetings thus far, listed below. Note there’s one in Rochester on March 9.
And because of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, it’s “up in the air,” though Gov. Dayton has pledged to carry on.
North Dakota v. EPA, et al._020916_15A793
Meetings from today forward are an open house at 5:30 p.m. and the meeting beginning at 6:30 p.m.:
February 23: University of Minnesota–Duluth, Swenson Civil Engineering Building, Rooms 265/231, Duluth (event flyer here — updated with the full building name)
February 24: Southwest Minnesota State University Conference Center, Upper Ballroom, Marshall (event flyer here — updated with the new date)
March 2: The Wellstone Center, St. Paul (event flyer here)
March 8: Minneapolis Urban League, Minneapolis (event flyer here)
March 9: Centerstone Plaza Hotel, Rochester (event flyer here)
There will be a rulemaking, but they’re not planning on forming an Advisory Group (which I think should be done), so that means that when they present the rule, it’ll pretty much be a done deal, SO that’s why the stakeholder meetings and info listed below is important, and that’s why you should go to these meetings and speak up.
If you have questions about the rulemaking or anything else regarding the Clean Power Plan, sign up for email notices through GovDelivery.Contact. For questions about the status of the MPCA’s rulemaking contact Katie Izzo at katie.izzo@state.mn.us or by phone at 651-757-2595.
Clean Power Plan stakeholder group info:
Dec. 11, 2015 – Compliance projections – Ciborowski model
Dec. 11, 2015 – Compliance projections – Bradley tool
Dec. 11, 2015 – Draft federal-plan comments for discussion
Dec. 11, 2015 – Spreadsheet of EPA’s comment requests in the proposed federal plan
Dec. 11, 2015 – Agenda
Dec. 11, 2015 – Commerce/PCA joint comments to EPA on CEIP
Nov. 17, 2015 – Agenda
Nov. 17, 2015 – Presentation: Comments on the proposed federal plan
Nov. 17, 2015 – Discussion questions
Oct. 8, 2015 – Final-rule summary
Oct. 8, 2015 – Topics for comment on proposed federal plan
Oct. 8, 2015 – Agenda and notes
Oct. 8, 2015 – CCAP input-gathering presentation
Oct. 8, 2015 – Possible rule and plan schedules
Sept. 17, 2015 – CCAP final-rule briefing
Clean Power Plan Stakeholder Group: July 17, 2015 – Presentation – 111(d) market interactions
Clean Power Plan Stakeholder Group: July 17, 2015 – Handout – Rule & plan processes
Clean Power Plan Stakeholder Group: July 17, 2015 – Notes
Clean Power Plan Stakeholder Group: June 26, 2015 – Presentation – Differentiating rates and allocating emissions allowances (CCAP)
Clean Power Plan Stakeholder Group: June 26, 2015 – Notes
Clean Power Plan Stakeholder Group: May 18, 2015 – Webinar handout – SRA emissions tracking
Clean Power Plan Stakeholder Group: May 18, 2015 – Webinar handout – MRETS overview
Clean Power Plan Stakeholder Group: May 18, 2015 – Webinar handout – CRS and RAP
Clean Power Plan Stakeholder Group: April 29, 2015 – Notes
Clean Power Plan Stakeholder Group: April 29, 2015 – Handout – Making a state 111(d) plan trading ready
Clean Power Plan Stakeholder Group: April 15, 2015 – Handout – MISO Overview
Clean Power Plan Stakeholder Group: April 15, 2015 – Handout – MISO Phase 3 Study
Clean Power Plan Stakeholder Group: March 18, 2015 – Presentation – Preparing for the final Clean Power Plan (CCAP)
Clean Power Plan Stakeholder Group: March 18, 2015 – Notes
Clean Power Plan Stakeholder Group: Feb. 20, 2015 – Notes
Clean Power Plan Stakeholder Group: Feb. 20, 2015 – Meeting summary
Clean Power Plan Stakeholder Group: Feb. 20, 2015 – Meeting in-session notes
Clean Power Plan Stakeholder Group: Feb. 20, 2015 – Rulemaking process outline
Clean Power Plan Stakeholder Group: Sept. 22, 2014 – Notes
Clean Power Plan Stakeholder Group: Sept. 22, 2014 – Handout – Proposed Changes to 111(d) Rule to Recognize Early Action (Xcel)
Clean Power Plan Stakeholder Group: Aug. 28, 2014 – Notes
Clean Power Plan Stakeholder Group: Aug. 28, 2014 – Handout – EPA’s Proposal to Reduce Carbon Emissions – Study Scope (MISO)
Clean Power Plan Stakeholder Group: Aug. 11, 2014 – Notes
Clean Power Plan Stakeholder Group: Aug. 11, 2014 – Handout – Compliance scenarios
Clean Power Plan Stakeholder Group: Aug. 11, 2014 – Handout – Draft comments to EPA (MPCA)
Clean Power Plan Stakeholder Group: Aug. 11, 2014 – Handout – MWh and CO2 shortfall estimates (MPCA)
Clean Power Plan Stakeholder Group: June 26, 2015 – Handout – Discussion questions
Clean Power Plan Stakeholder Group: July 25, 2014 – Notes
Clean Power Plan Stakeholder Group: July 7, 2014 – Notes
Filed in Legislative & Policy, Political Sense (non?), Power Plants - includes Mesaba coal gasification
Oh, Xcel, this is long overdue!
Look what just appeared in the inbox:
20162-118280-01_OAH_Letter to Chamber of Commerce
And here’s what the ALJ in the Xcel Energy rate (PUC Docket GR-15-826) had to say to the Chamber:
He’s still in jail and looking for public defender… how would he qualify?
Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy to remain jailed, asks for attorney
Complaint-Cliven-Bundy-02112015