Crown Hydro Breaking News: Senate Bill Introduced (SF 840)

WTF? (0.00 / 0)

TPT, I have been reading your series on Crown Hydro and it seems that your approach is to argue that anyone who opposes this is either corrupt or just an idiot.  

Yes, hydro power is green energy and constitutes a valid public purpose.  The problem, which you don't seem to acknowledge, is that preserving parkland and historical sites is also valid.  There are competing interests at stake here, and I don't know that one necessarily trumps the other.  

As far as the park board breaching the 1998 agreement, you can see that Crown Hydro agreed that it would not use eminent domain - and it has gone back on that part of the agreement as well.  The plans for the project itself have also changed significantly since 1998.  I don't know that the park board has clean hands here, but I suspect there is plenty of blame to go around.

This project may, in fact, be a good idea.  But you aren't going to convince anyone of that by refusing to acknowledge the other side's arguments.  My impression is that Crown Hydro has run into problems because it has taken the same approach you have - trying to bully the park board into giving it what it wants.  

---

by: Dan @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 12:53:54 PM CST

Agreed, Dan - there are competing interests at stake (0.00 / 0)

But, I do take issue with what you posted, here:

...it seems that your approach is to argue that anyone who opposes this is either corrupt...

If you go back and take another look, I suggested that ParkWatch.org was suggesting that the Park Board was.  Here's the quote, on what I said:

The most ironic aspect of what I've found is there are people that do not like the Park Board; their organization is Mpls Park Board Watch.org (when you google "parkboard watch" the hit reads "We deserve a better park board").  And if you dig through their archives, the meme is basically that the Park Board is filled with lying, corrupt, stealing and incompetent people and you cannot believe a word they say - EXCEPT when it comes to the Crown Hydro project.  (MnPP.com)

If anyone has reached the same conclusion on what I've written while looking into this fascinating story of, well, "competing insterests" that someone is "corrupt" - then I offer my apologies for not making my writing more clear.

For the record, I haven't read anything that would lead me to conclude there is corruption on anyone's part.

That said, I have looked at the Eminent Domain issue, and posted on that issue in responsed to a post by Karl Bremer.  I'll repost it, again:

As noted above, there is no argument Crown Hydro had the right of Eminent Domain inherent in the license; what was arguable is the status of the proposed site - was it parkland when the license was issued, or wasn't it?

Since the developer and the Park Board had compelling arguments for their position, it is valid question; it's a question that the lawyers needed to sort out.

As I read the documents, the developer's position was that the site wasn't "parkland" when the license was issued; the site was "land the park owned" and according to law, there is a difference in the ability of a developer to exercise eminent doman in the latter instance.

And as I read it, the developer's position was rejected by FERC due to the detailed response of the Park Board's legal team.

As far as "preserving parkland" - I haven't seen anything that demonstrates this project doesn't.  Have you?

Finally, while I agree with you that  suspect there is plenty of blame to go around, I disagree wity you in that  I'm not "arguing" this; I'm writing about what I'm finding as I dig into the multiple story lines.  If there's anyone "bullying" it, it's the project's detractors who, for one instance, are attempting to reframe the issue from a legal and valid public use to "that evil and greedy developer."

"Those that forget the lessons of history, tend to vote GOP"

---

by: TwoPuttTommy @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 15:52:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

ok (0.00 / 0)

Whether or not Crown Hydro had the right to use eminent domain is irrelevant because in the agreement you cite, they agreed not to use it.  That was the whole point of the agreement - the park board withdrew their objections in exchange for Crown Hydro waiving its right to eminent domain.  

You can't blame the park board for not living up to the agreement when Crown Hydro has not done so either.  If the argument around that is making a distinction between parkland and land own by the park, I would say that Crown Hydro is acting in bad faith.  

---

by: Dan @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 17:15:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The "bad faith" argument works both ways (0.00 / 0)

Dan, as I read it, had the Park Board lived up to it's part in the stipulation agreement, the developer wouldn't have felt the need to re-explore it's legal options.

"Those that forget the lessons of history, tend to vote GOP"

---

by: TwoPuttTommy @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 20:14:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

40 more jobs (0.00 / 0)

That's 40 new union construction jobs and 2000 homes getting clean energy.

Kubly, and the others are to be commended for showing the courage to stand up for the 25 by 25 and a job stimulus that does not involve taxpayer dollars.

I hope everyone in the IBEW or 49er's drops these guys an e-mail and thanks them.

---

by: taxpayingliberal @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 16:17:44 PM CST

Without more Minneapolis Support this bill is DOA (0.00 / 0)

It's also late in the session for a bill such as this to get through all the hurdles of committees - unless the strategy is the Michele Bachmann strategy of making bill become law (not surprising for a bill to help out a major Michele Bachmann supporter).  Linda Higgins will be especially critical since she represents the area that this is located in.

---

by: lloydletta @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 20:41:25 PM CST

Screw the jobs, we want revenge! (0.00 / 0)

So the only clean energy project that is on the radar for the city of Mlps should be put on hold because one of the investors game money to the wrong candidate. (Please ignore the fact that the President of Crown is one of the founders of Earth Day)
That's quite a standard LLoydetta  has established.  After this we should tear down the Target center and the Target building because they also gave money to the person LLoydetta opposes.

But why stop there. The Wells Fargo building and all its branch's should also be prohibited for operating in Mlps because they also gave money to the wrong person.

I opposed the same person but I prefer to look at the greater good rather than use revenge as a motive as to whether or not I want to remove 18,000 tons of carbon from the atmosphere.

Linda Higgins may want to explain to the IBEW and Building Trades people what she is proposing to replace the construction jobs lost if she opposes this.

The Park board may want to explain why they need to cut staff if this fails. Maybe a card in the pink slips will do. Maybe it's time for Sen. Higgins to come out publicly on this.

I know 40 or 50 or more jobs seems like a small price to pay for the pleasure of getting revenge against a person who held a fund raiser for the wrong type of person (no problem if it's not your job)but that seem more like the tactics that the last administration used. Anyone want change?

Will someone who opposes this please explain what their plan is for creating clean energy in Mlps.
What projects are you for LLoydetta?

---

by: taxpayingliberal @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 22:06:20 PM CST

Well, here's "the plan" for creating green energy, in Duluth.... (0.00 / 0)

From Finance and Commerce.com on February 10th, 2009:

The bill's introduction comes at a time when Duluth-based Minnesota Power is discussing a 15-year agreement to purchase 250 megawatts of hydro power from Winnipeg-based Manitoba Hydro-Electric.

That power purchase agreement includes the routing of a 230-kilovolt transmission line from Canada to Duluth, according to Glenn Schneider, public affairs manager for Manitoba Hydro.

The Canada-based utility is also negotiating with Maple Grove-based Great River Energy, Minneapolis-based Xcel Energy Inc. and Wisconsin Public Service Corp. to buy electricity, Schneider said.

Manitoba Hydro-Electric plans to boost hydro power capacity over the next 12 years by building a number of dams along a 400-mile stretch of the Nelson River as it flows from Lake Winnipeg to Hudson Bay. (Finance and Commerce.com)

So, as we see, time after time, meeting Minnesota's energy needs has cross-border implications for matters beyond just imported oil; implications that have environmental aspects both here and abroad.  The big difference between increasing hydro in Manitoba, and here - locally - for Crown Hydro, is Crown Hydro is a "run of river" low impact  project while the Manitoba projects are "reservoir" projects, that can do a lot of environmental damage.

So - who is the author of that bill, referred to in the story, above?

Senator Yvonne Prettner Solon, DFL-Duluth - who also happens to Chair the  Energy, Utilities, Technology and Communications Committee; the committee where SF 840 has been referred.  

"Those that forget the lessons of history, tend to vote GOP"

---

by: TwoPuttTommy @ Mon Feb 23, 2009 at 10:02:25 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Kubly has taken his name off the bill (4.00 / 1)

Anyone know why?

People use the "jobs" argument to argue for public subsidies for a parking lot at the Mall of America.  I also think that is bad public policy.

I received the following from a group of people who are opposed to this project.  I believe it was Tommy (or possibly Tom Beckfeld), who told me that the Minnesota Historical Society supported this project.  Can this be sourced to a link to a resolution that states this?

The following was prepared by citizens who are concerned and opposed to the Crown Hydro project.  I'd challenge you: Muse and Taxpaying Liberal to address these issues on a point by point basis.  I'll agree with Joe Bodell - it is strange how venomous this issue gets.  

Greenwashing:
The Crown Hydro Project and Its Impact on St. Anthony Falls and Mill Ruins Park

This information was prepared on February 20, 2009 by a group of concerned citizens and residents of Minneapolis including Edna Brazaitis, Lisa Hondros and Cynthia Kriha.

Crown Hydro and its supporters argue that opposition to the Crown Hydro project is opposition to renewable energy. This is simply not true. We are strong supporters of renewable energy but in a smart way that is beneficial for all. Crown Hydro seeks endorsement of its project because it is green, independent of any analysis of other alternatives or risk. We encourage all stewards of our rivers, parks and heritage to take a broader view of the implications of this project. There are other alternatives, and the greenest option is the one that already exists -- updating the existing historic hydroelectric power plant at St. Anthony Falls.

1) There are better alternatives.  Xcel Energy currently operates a 12-megawatt hydroelectricpower plant on the east side of the river at St. Anthony Falls. Crown Hydro proposes construction of a 3.2-megawatt hydroelectric power plant across the river on public land owned by the Minneapolis Park Board that would divert water from the flow over the Falls.  Updating the existing Xcel plant with current technology could produce even more than 3.2megawatts of additional power at a cheaper cost and without changing the water flow overthe Falls.

2) Non-renewable energy resources will be needed to create this plant. It is not prudent to waste those resources when there is an existing hydro plant directly across the River. If the need for the power generated by this plant is urgent, certainly a smarter use of existing limited resources is to update the plant across the River.

3) Without a significant public subsidy, this project is not economically viable. Experts have concluded that Crown Hydro?s energy generation projections are overly optimistic and ignore the financial risks of a potential drought. This project may fail even with a $5.1M grant subsidy through Xcel?s Renewable Development Fund of which $1.5M has already been spent. Xcel?s ratepayers finance this fund. Given advancements in renewable energy technology, there are better ways to invest the public?s money.  And any real financial benefits to the Park Board remain unsubstantiated.  

4) The proposed location will forever destroy the archeological effects in Mill Ruins Park. There is a unique historic fabric including the old head race and power canal. The water power canal was a significant engineering achievement for its time, advancing the efficiency of water power, and the canal area has the potential to be designated a National Historic Landmark. In November 2007, Scott Anfinson, State Archeologist, advised the Park Board, that "... [T]he exit tunnel for this facility will adversely impact a significant historic structure, namely the historic tailrace tunnel system. The construction of the turbines could also prevent the restoration of the historic waterpower canal entrance should that be proposed in the future." Also of concern would be the detrimental impacts from the much larger construction staging area; typical projects like this require a significant footprint for the construction itself. The risks are significant. Preserving and protecting the historic fabric of Mill Ruins Park is essential.

5) Stewardship of Mill Ruins Park and local control of this important part of the riverfront will no longer rest in the hands of the Minneapolis Park Board. Access to the Park for purposes of creating and operating the hydroelectric plant is considered a land sale and thedecision of this Park Board will be one that will impact many generations. Selling public parkland to private industry is not the legacy we want for our city. No lease with a private entity can protect this key part of the Park and the opportunity for future generations to learnabout the history of Minneapolis.

6) Man, not nature, will be in control of the aesthetics of St. Anthony Falls. The flow of water will be diverted away from the Falls by this project and at times the Falls themselves will look almost dry to the naked eye according to a University of Minnesota civil engineering professor who works at the St. Anthony Falls Lab. The Metropolitan Council reported thatover 1.2 million visitors per year come to the Minneapolis riverfront park that runs from Plymouth Avenue to the 35W bridge on both sides of the Mississippi River. The key feature of this park is St. Anthony Falls, the only waterfall in the entire 2340 miles of the Mississippi River.

7) The Minneapolis Park Board has consistently rejected siting the Crown Hydro project on its property despite over five years of various requests."...the Park Board holds that granting the requested amendment of license has the potential to do irreparable damage to the goals of the Park Board and the City of Minneapolis in the ongoing development or recreational
facilities and historic preservation activities in the project
area."-From a March 2003 Park Board filing to the Federal Energy and Regulatory Commission stating opposition to the Crown Hydro project

8) This is an extremely complex situation given the various government agencies involved and technical details. Thousands of taxpayer dollars
and hundreds of staff hours have already been spent on this project over the past five years. The expertise of the Park Board is in the
ownership and maintenance of our City?s parks, not in entering into complex 100-year lease arrangements with a sophisticated energy producer.

9) There are other significant obstacles to this project including: a) Current zoning for Mill Ruins Park makes this an impermissible use; b) No environmental assessment has been completed; c) Under existing law, any payments from Crown Hydro to the Park Board would be passed on to the State of Minnesota since public funds were used to procure the land now designated as Mill Ruins Park; this minimizes any financial benefit to the Park Board; d) Soil contamination on the site has been identified and will have an impact on any excavation of the area; e) Concerns about the impacts on the Lock and Dam and river traffic as expressed by the Corps of Engineers in their letter dated 1-14-2003 have not yet been addressed.

10) What is the value of St. Anthony Falls and the parkland surrounding it? It is impossible to put a price on so precious an asset.

11) This project lacks the support of the National Park Service, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Minnesota Historical Society, the Land Use Committee of the Sierra Club,the State Historic Preservation Office as well as the Preservation Alliance of Minnesota.

"The Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, on behalf of all current and future citizens of the City ofMinneapolis, shall strive to permanently preserve, protect, maintain, improve and enhance the City?sparkland and recreational opportunities."- Mission of the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

---

by: lloydletta @ Mon Feb 23, 2009 at 23:01:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'd challenge this group to source their work. (0.00 / 0)

I received Loloydletta's list in .pdf form in an e-mail, and the first thing I noted was this group didn't source their claims.  Why is that?  From the .pdf, as posted above:

Updating the existing Xcel plant with current technology could produce even more than 3.2megawatts of additional power at a cheaper cost and without changing the water flow overthe Falls.

Link, please?

Non-renewable energy resources will be needed to create this plant.

Link, please?

Without a significant public subsidy, this project is not economically viable.

This one strikes me as absurd.  Without "significant public subsidy" almost every energy project, from nuclear on down, isn't economically  viable.  In fact, without "significant public subsidy" - nuclear is NEVER viable.

And any real financial benefits to the Park Board remain unsubstantiated.

A proposed draft lease from the developer presented to the ParkBoard I read offered One Million Dollars, lump sum, payable to the Park Board, when construction began.   Apparently, this group isn't aware of that proposal.

The proposed location will forever destroy the archeological effects in Mill Ruins Park.

Link, please?

The flow of water will be diverted away from the Falls by this project and at times the Falls themselves will look almost dry to the naked eye according to a University of Minnesota civil engineering professor who works at the St. Anthony Falls Lab.

Link, please?

"...the Park Board holds that granting the requested amendment of license has the potential to do irreparable damage to the goals of the Park Board and the City of Minneapolis in the ongoing development or recreational
facilities and historic preservation activities in the project
area."

Specifically, how?

The expertise of the Park Board is in the
ownership and maintenance of our City?s parks, not in entering into complex 100-year lease arrangements with a sophisticated energy producer.

As hydro leases are common, and the Park Board can easily consult top legal talent locally, I have to wonder where the problem is.

Thousands of taxpayer dollars and hundreds of staff hours have already been spent on this project over the past five years.

This one I'll dig into.  From a Park Board document:

Where do we go from here?
The Board has asked staff to prepare a timeline and plan for moving the Crown Hydro project through the Board's review process. To facilitate these actions, Crown Hydro has agreed to pay all costs associated with the EAW, CAC process, and staff resources invested by the Board in evaluating and processing the project.

One of the first activities will be to contact the State Department of Finance to evaluate the conditions and financial liabilities the Park Board will be required to meet under state statues. The State Department of Finance will help staff identify the economic benefits the Park board will be eligible to receive from the project revenues and the lease terms required by state statues.
A contract will be negotiated with Crown Hydro for the reimbursement of all costs associated with the pre construction activities. (MPRB)

Anyone interested should wonder why the claims on this list was not sourced, and the financial claims appear to be debunked by a Park Board document.

Finally, it should be noted that while the Park Board's  Superintendent recommended approval for the project review process, the Board voted 5-4 not to proceed.

Which begs the question:  why?

 

"Those that forget the lessons of history, tend to vote GOP"

---

by: TwoPuttTommy @ Tue Feb 24, 2009 at 00:33:18 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Thanks (0.00 / 0)

Its nice to actually get the other side of the story instead of just the strawman that TPT has put out there.  And lo and behold, it seems there are a lot of valid reasons to oppose or at least to be concerned about this project.  

---

by: Dan @ Tue Feb 24, 2009 at 20:55:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

So, Dan - you actually approve of throwin' stuff against the wall... (0.00 / 0)

..and seeing what sticks?

From today's Minnesota Daily:

MPRB Commissioner Scott Vreeland said he thinks the bill is a bad idea.

Vreeland said he voted against the project because it would diminish the beauty of St. Anthony Falls permanently.

But fellow MPRB Commissioner Carol Kummer had different ideas about the project.

"My initial knowledge of this was positive, and I never heard or saw anything in subsequent years that changed my mind," Kummer said.

Kummer said the project saw opposition from residents on the river and former Vice President Walter Mondale, who worried about diminishing the beauty of the falls. Mondale sent a letter to the MPRB the day of the vote, Kummer said, which was "full of misinformation" that it would destroy St. Anthony Falls.

And yes, that "Mondale Letter" was indeed full of misinformation.

Here's a question I sent (along with a few others) to each and every Park Board Commissioner, before I was aware of the Minnesota Daily story:

In Vice-President Mondale's 17 December 2007 letter to the Park Board Members(2), Vice-President Mondale stated, and I quote:

"And does anyone really believe that a contractual assurance relative to reduction of flow will really be locally enforced after this land and the related regulation is subject to the politics of a federal agency. The only true safeguard against future harm rests with your resolve."

In essence, Vice-President Mondale is stating our government officials cannot be trusted to enforce existing law.  Do you agree, or disagree, that government officials cannot be trusted to enforce existing law?  Please explain.

(2)  http://mplsparkwatch.org/files...

Now, you should have noted long before now, Dan - I source my work.

Why doesn't those people Lloydletta reposted for, do the same?

"Those that forget the lessons of history, tend to vote GOP"

---

by: TwoPuttTommy @ Tue Feb 24, 2009 at 23:49:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

William Hawks and His Fundraiser for Michele Bachmann (0.00 / 0)

btw:  I requested to Tom Beckfeld (who volunteers with Nikki Carlson [paid Crown Hydro lobbyist]) to get an interview with William Hawks to ask him some questions.  Among these questions would be to get him on the record as to why he held a fundraiser at his house to support Michele Bachmann.  According to Beckfeld and Carlson (Carlson during the DFL convention in Rochester), Hawks was unaware of what Bachmann stood for when he hosted the fundraiser at his Lake Minnetonka House.  So far, Hawks appears to be a bit of a chicken hawk when it comes to answering these questions.  Why?  I'd have more respect for the guy if he would go on the record and defend his support for Michele Bachmann.

I would also be interested in asking about the Eminent Domain issues raised by Karl Bremer.

---

by: lloydletta @ Mon Feb 23, 2009 at 23:20:51 PM CST

I'm curious, Lloydletta - (0.00 / 0)

Perhaps you could explain what Bill Hawks hosting a fundraiser for Michelle Bachmann has to do with Crown Hydro?

"Those that forget the lessons of history, tend to vote GOP"

---

by: TwoPuttTommy @ Tue Feb 24, 2009 at 00:55:39 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Great points Eva, (0.00 / 0)

Eva,
These are great comments and concerns and point out why Crown hydro should be built.

Your 1st point about how Excel can increase its production by updating it equipment is interesting. If it's possible then they should by all mean do it. That combined with Crown Hydro would give us even more clean energy and double the amount of co2 we can remove from the atmosphere.  One wonders why Excel hasn't done it if what you and the others are claiming is true.

The 2nd point is pretty much the same as the 1st but I would like to point out that we need much more clean energy that updating the Excel plant and building Crown Hydro will provide. This is just a step in the right direction not the end game that will get us to energy independence and clean renewable energy.

The rest of your points are pretty fuzzy.  The park board won't lose control, the water won't dry up because of this project, Most of the people you claim oppose this project have not weighed or did so when the FERC application was being sought.

Concerning the cost to taxpayers. Crown Hydro has paid or reimbursed the park board for most if not all of the expenses related to this project.

Many of these issues are putting the cart before the horse and are a normal part of the process once the project gets approval.

But its nice to see some real objections. A public hearing will give all parties a chance to express these concerns and clear the air (pardon the pun. Would you join me in calling for a public hearing?  

---

by: taxpayingliberal @ Tue Feb 24, 2009 at 09:40:05 AM CST

Bill Hawks and the Psychology of the Michele Bachmann Supporter (0.00 / 0)

Twoputt writes:

"I'm curious, Lloydletta - (0.00 / 0)
Perhaps you could explain what Bill Hawks hosting a fundraiser for Michelle Bachmann has to do with Crown Hydro?"

It doesn't - but the psychology of the Bachmann supporter would be an interesting study for the Dump Michele Bachmann blog.  I'd be very interested in interviewing Hawks about why he did the fundraiser, and who attended.  It speaks volumes that his people through lobbyist Nikki Carlson (didn't try to directly contact Hawks), won't allow this interview.

When I interviewed El Tinklenberg, I gave him a chance to plug his campaign in a positive way.  I also asked him some tough questions on social issues - which he answered well in my view.

---

by: lloydletta @ Tue Feb 24, 2009 at 22:36:25 PM CST