OK, I read the Strib story; it was there on their front page:
Parks think green, as in cash
Minneapolis' Park Board is looking at business partnerships and other ventures to bring in needed bucks.
By ALEX EBERT, Star Tribune
Last update: July 25, 2010 - 9:19 PM
Faced with a shrunken budget, Minneapolis park leaders hope a combination of bikes, burgers and an Italian sculptor named Brioschi will stave off further cuts to the popular and nationally known park system.
According to The Hill newspaper, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) "is introducing legislation to expand use of renewable electricity and transportation fuels that she says is a way to increase political support for broad energy legislation among farm-state lawmakers." Reuters adds that Klobuchar's legislation would promote "a long-term extension of biofuel tax breaks." Klobuchar says, "it is time to look at home-grown energy and that includes biofuels and they should be part of this."
At first glance, that all sounds innocuous enough, but there's a major problem: Sen. Klobuchar is (cleverly) baiting the hook with a strong Renewable Energy Standard, which most environmentalists support, but at the same time she's also including the worst of the worst biofuels proposals - corn ethanol. For instance, as Nathanael Greene of NRDC points out, Klobuchar's proposal includes a 5-year extension of the corn ethanol tax credit, at a cost to taxpayers of more than $30 billion. Klobuchar's legislation also appears to redefine old-growth forests as "biomass," potentially promoting deforestation. And Klobuchar's legislation would harm the development of truly advanced biofuels, in favor of corn ethanol. There's more, but that's sufficient to give you a good idea of how misguided and potentially harmful this bill happens to be.
Two weeks ago I wrote a post entitled "Protecting A Parking Lot" where Park Watch's June 17th testimony to the Park Board was duly noted and dismissed as the junk it was. I was going to fisk that junk; but other things got in the way. So, I thought I'd attend last night's Minneapolis Park Board meeting, and do some fisking there. Here's what I wanted to say; I gave an abridged version as I thought I'd have three minutes but was only given two:
Mr. President, Ms. Vice President, Commissioners: My name is Tommy Johnson. Most of you know me as TwoPutt Tommy. I am a blogger at MNProgressiveProject. I am here to speak about blogging, ParkWatch, and a little bit about Crown Hydro.
MNProgressiveProject is a group of bloggers that speak for no one but ourselves. We cover issues all over the state of Minnesota. Like all reputable blogs, we try to follow something loosely called the Blogger's Code of Ethics. There are two basic elements we go by.
First, be honest in gathering, reporting and interpreting information. This means checking facts. One of the tenets of this guideline is to distinguish between advocacy, commentary and factual information. Even advocacy writing and commentary should not misrepresent fact or context.
Second, be accountable. We admit our mistakes, and correct our posts.
In the course of my blogging, I covered the issue of Crown Hydro, and became aware of ParkWatch. The Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board is covered extensively by the blog ParkWatch, and they are also activists against certain projects, such as Crown Hydro. On June 17th a blogger from ParkWatch addressed the Park Board and posted said comments on their blog.
I made a brief blog post about this on Friday, June 19th - I brefly touched on Park Watch's comments, but didn't get into specifics. Tonight, I'd like to.
On June 17th, a Park Watch member, Arlene Fried, made the following comments:
She said, and I quote: "We know that the public will lose control over St. Anthony Falls to a private developer and the FERC. No one can predict water flows over the next 50 to 100 years, and an EAW will not enlighten you on this topic. The FERC will have the authority to let the Falls run dry in order to produce energy."
This is completely at odds with what the FERC License says. The FERC license Article 309 requires Crown Hydro to work with the other water users on a flow plan. (1) They did this. (2) There are 4 water users at this elevation, the City, the Army Corps and Xcel Energy. Crown Hydro has last use. First to turn off, last to turn on, and will never run at times of low flow. Article 404 (3) requires them to have a plan to implement this. And finally, the lease terms negotiated by the Park Board indicate the Park Board has control of water diversion when flows are at 1000 cfs or below. (4) This lease term becomes part of the FERC license, in essence, fully enforceable federal law. Some people might call what Ms. Fried said untrue; I'll simply say the license contradicts what she said.
The second statement she made, and I quote: "We know that a FERC hydropower license will preempt local control of historic preservation issues."
Again, completely at odds with everything I've read. This is local park land, on a federal waterway, in part of a national park. The Minneapolis Heritage Preservation office will work with the State Historic Preservation Office and the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board to create a Programmatic Agreement that addresses historic preservation issues. Some people might call what Ms. Fried said untrue; I'll simply say the record contradicts what she said.
I hope the ParkWatch blog accepts these fact corrections and edits their blog accordingly.
Quite frankly, the Park Watch people don't source their work and for the most part their work is junk. When people have to make stuff up to make a point, their point isn't worth making.
FOR THE RECORD: I was not involved in forming the Minneapolis Park Watch Watch blog, I have not been invoved, nor am I now involved. But, I'd like to think that my mocking, ridiculing, and scorning of the Park Watch folk was part of the inspiration to the people that did. And who knows? Down the road, I might just make a post or three or more over there...
The time has come for Minnesotans to use innovation to reduce our independence on fossil fuels. However, we must at the same time be leading the nation in the development of green jobs and the green economy. We have a moral obligation to leave future generations a clean, sustainable environment.
"Information? We don't need no stinkin' information."
It's important to note that after all their "due diligence" - according to them - the Sierra Club decided to oppose the Crown Hydro project on the basis that "a fifty year lease (of a parking lot) isn't really a 'lease' - it's a 'sale'."
Here's the money quote from the Chapter's State Director, Maragret Levin:
"After careful consideration, the Sierra Club is opposing the Crown Hydro project due to what amounts to, legally, as a "sale" of public parkland (the proposed 50-year lease, with a right to renew for an additional 50 years). The Sierra Club North Star Chapter has long expressed concern about the sale of public park land to a private enterprise."
Now, one way to look at that opposition is this: since after all that "careful consideration" the only - ONLY - reason the Sierra Club opposes the project is the length of the lease, it must be a pretty dam(n) good project.
But, what did ParkWatch testify to the Minneapolis Park Board, just the other night? Let's look!
"After careful consideration, the Sierra Club is opposing the Crown Hydro project due to what amounts to, legally, as a "sale" of public parkland (the proposed 50-year lease, with a right to renew for an additional 50 years). The Sierra Club North Star Chapter has long expressed concern about the sale of public park land to a private enterprise.
We recognize that the proposed use is in accordance with Minnesota Statute 103G.535, and we are not lobbying to change State Statute 103G.535.
The Sierra Club is cognizant of the delicate balance between promoting a clean energy future and the impact of projects on the local parkland and natural resources."
The Crown Hydro Project proposes using the power of the St. Anthony Falls to generate clean and renewable electricity - link to Liberal in the Land of Conservative to see exactly what the "before" and "after" images of what the construction site does and will look like.
Throughout the Crown Hydro Project's long history, the major obstacle to construction has been the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. There are very loud and very local activists adamantly opposed to this project - and very clear that they feel only they should have any say in the matter. Here's what one Minneapolis resident had to say on the matter, on the Minneapolis Issues List:
Like it or not, the Crown Hydro project wants to use land that is owned by the Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board and, that board is elected by residents of Minneapolis. They ought to concern themselves very much with what Minneapolis taxpayers say; they can pretty much ignore what taxpayers in Eden Prairie say.
This comment is typical of those opposed to Crown Hydro, even though the Park Board relies heavily on outside funding for it's operations and even though Crown Hydro would provide approximately $300,000 - annually - in additional Park Board funding.
How heavily does the Minneapolis Park Board rely on revenue other than property taxes for it's operations? In 2007, according to the Park Board, of the total 2007 Park Board revenues, 14.1% were Unrestricted Grants &
Contributions; 3.8% were Operating Grants & Contributions; and 13% were Capital Grants & Contributions - for a total of 30.9% of total revenue. Only 62.3% of 2007 Park Board revenues, according to the Park Board, were
generated by locally-paid property taxes.
The St. Cloud Times Editorial Board weighed in on the subject of regional parks funding at the state level, today. Let's look at part of what they said:
(Editor's note: more, and a YouTube too, beyond the fold)
Yesterday marked the 160th Anniversary of the US Department of the Interior. According to a Press Release, over 600 people were in attendance for the speech and Department employees around the nation watched via satellite broadcast or listened via teleconference bridge. Plus, an unknown number watched live on TV - as I did. Here's an excerpt, from President Obama's remarks:
The Interior Department manages the land on which 30 percent of the nation's energy is produced. So you have a major role to play, all of you, in our clean energy future. The nation is depending on you to help us end the tyranny of foreign oil and become energy independent -- by harnessing the wind and the sun, our water, our soil, and American innovation.
That's why I'm proud to join you this afternoon. That's why I am pleased that this department is in the capable hands of my great friend Ken Salazar. And that is why the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act creates jobs by making historic investments in the Department of the Interior.
This plan will provide more than $3 billion to the department to create jobs doing the work that America needs you to do. It will create jobs increasing our capacity to generate renewable energy on public lands -- and retrofitting facilities to be far more energy efficient. (Interior Department)
Did everybody catch that? Let's add some emphasis:
The nation is depending on you to help us end the tyranny of foreign oil and become energy independent -- by harnessing the wind and the sun, our water, our soil, and American innovation.
And:
It will create jobs increasing our capacity to generate renewable energy on public lands
That's "our water" - as in the Mississippi River. OUR water - it's not just the water of those that live on Nicolet Island; not just the water of those that live in condos overlooking the Mississippi River; they don't have exclusive rights to it - we ALL own it.
Thinking about the comments of Regular Reader and (not frequently enough) imPoster "Dan" on this thread and again on this thread , got me thinking that my writing sytle ("Jack-Pine Savageese") and previous posts probably didn't clearly differentiate between "objections" and "concerns." And I'd like to think that's what makes MnProgressive Project great; Contributors and Regular Readers and (im)Posters like Dan, making folk think and rethink what they've written - like me.
Clearly, a whole bunch of reasonable and learned people had, and in many cases, continue to have, valid "concerns" concerning the Crown Hydro Project. In the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") licensing process, FERC invites every unit of government, and I mean every, from federal level on down, to submit comments and weigh in. FERC then weighs these concerns (and the supporting documentations), in their decision on whether or not to grant the license.
Now, those that are familiar with my writing, hopefully remember I do my best to do my homework. For instance, in the posts I did concerning republiCon Ron and the Minnesota GOP's FEC problem, I did a whole lot of digging; and it took a lot of digging to find out that Jeff "Landlord" Larson was claiming a homestead exemption for ol' Smokescreen's DC digs and that there were two utility meters for said digs - which raised the question: Who Is Paying Norm's Electric Bill?.
First, I'd like to point out that the FEC website is none-too-easy to pull info out of, even for a college grad with a poli-sci degree like me (yes, I'm a college graduate, even if I talk (and write!) like a jack-pine savage). And once data is pulled, ya still gotta do something with it.
Well, lemme tell ya: pullin' data outa (dam, there I go again, writing like I talk, in "Jack-Pine Savageese"!) the FEC website is a piece of cake, compared to the FERC website.
According to the State Senate's website, Senator Gary Kubly, DFL-Granite Falls, has removed himself as Chief Author of SF 840. Replacing Senator Kubly is Senator Ken Kelash, DFL-Minneapolis. What is most surprising about this is a press release from Senator Kubly, released last Friday, entitled "Green jobs can revitalize Greater Minnesota economy". Here's part of that release:
The Minnesota Green Jobs Task Force recently released a list of legislative recommendations which are aimed at retaining and growing more than 70,000 jobs in Minnesota. The Green Jobs Task Force was established during the 2008 Legislation Session to develop a plan to optimize the state's growth in the "green economy."
***
The task force's recommendations contained a wide variety of new proposals focused largely on renewable energy, green products, green services, and environmental conservation, including:
• Providing interest-free or interest-deferred loans for renewable-energy projects.
• Offering tax incentives to private investors supporting new and expanding green employers.
Kind of sounds like Senator Kubly supports projects similar to the Crown Hydro Project.
So why did Senator Kubly author SF840 on Thursday, send out that press release on Friday, and then remove himself as chief author on Monday - a span of 5 days, including the weekend?
Calls and an e-mail to Senator Kubly's office for comments have not been returned.
I heard rumors Friday, I just found it today on the Minnesota Senate's website: Senate File 840, "Hydroelectric facilities municipality or town approval requirements modifications" has been introduced.
This bill would apply to the Crown Hydro Project, on the Mississippi River in downtown Minneapolis. My research indicates the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB) had plenty of time to object during the licensing process - and they did. The MPRB signed off on the project once those objections were addressed. Subsequently, the project received a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license - but only after all interested parties had their say and their chance to object.
My preliminary analysis of the purpose for this bill, is to prevent the lowest level of government to stop a project after a proposed project has jumped through all of the regulatory hoops from the federal level on down; this bill recognizes that the time for the local unit of government to stop a proposed project is during the licensing process - not after.
In what appears to be the most egregious aspect of this long saga, is a Stipulation and Agreement between Crown Hydro and the MPRB, back in 1998. In it, and I quote:
4. Based on the agreements contained herein, MPRB concurs in the programmatic agreement and withdraws its objection to CHC's application for a major license herein.
* CHC = Crown Hydro Company
It appears to me that the MPRB signed off on the licensing agreement, only to later impede it - which is what the proposed legislation would rectify.
Two Republicans joined with three DFL Senators as authors. More on this breaking story, as it happens. Details of the authors, and the bill, below the fold.
I was going to write today about how the Crown Hydro project fits in with Hennepin County and City Of Minneapolis renewable energy goals and policies - I really was. Until, that is, I saw on the news last night (and subsequently read about in the Strib), about how our elected officials decided to set up a "Task Force" with a "goal" to "help businesses" "hire employees" in "green jobs." Oh - and set up a "Green Enterprise Authority" too.
I'm going to skip building on what I wrote about last week; how the Crown Hydro project not only fits with President Obama's energy plan, not only fits in with Minnesota's 25 By 2025 energy plan, but also fits in with Hennepin County and the City Of Minneapolis' stated goals and plans. Well, the project does, but I'm not going there today. Instead, I'm going to talk about how our elected officials have a "new plan" and a "new task force" to deal with something that - as far as I can tell so far - should have/could have already been built.
One of the group's main goals is to create a Green Enterprise Authority for the state that can help businesses looking to hire workers for so-called green jobs.
The task force also wants to renovate public buildings to make them more energy efficient, establish loan programs for renewable energy projects and create incentives for water recycling by the industrial sector.
Sen. Ellen Anderson, a Democrat from St. Paul who serves as co-chair of the task force, says at least 20,000 new jobs would be created and 50,000 jobs would be retained by 2020 if the proposals are adopted.
Anderson says some of the programs could be funded by some of the federal stimulus package money slated for Minnesota.
OK, that's fine; those are worthy goals; they're consistent with President Obama's plan. But, it's worth noting, again, that the Crown Hydro Project does NOT require "loan programs" nor "stimulus package money."
It's got the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license in place; it fits into President Obama's energy plan; it'll provide clean and renewable GREEN energy; it's privately financed; and it'll provide union jobs when there's currently over 700 union electricians currently unemployed. And that's just the electricians; there are a lot of tradespeople sitting on the bench and waiting for jobs like the Crown Hydro project will produce.
I'm still waiting for a legitimate objection to this project, from the project's detractors.
Apparently, according to a YouTube that Political Muse over at Liberal in the Land of Conservative just posted, that's what the Minneapolis' Park Board's lobbyist considers the projected $300,000 per YEAR lease payments, from Crown Hydro to the Park Board.
Part of Political Muse's... well, muse:
While I have no problem with Campo or the Park Board soliciting legislators for increased funding, I have a huge problem with them doing so at the same time they are turning down dollars from a private investor whose only goal is to build a renewable energy hydro plant on a small fraction of land.
***
A note to any legislators who may view this particular clip: The next time MaryAnn Campo comes begging for my money could you please ask her why she prefers my money to that of someone who actually wants to give her money? (LitLoC)
Here's that YouTube:
Oh - and Blue Man weighed in on the Crown Hydro project, too.
A hat-tip to Political Muse, for posting on this subject AND being technically proficient enough to get the images on to his site; which I something I haven't been able to master yet.
The point here is, one of the objections I've heard is "the Crown Hydro site will be an eyesore." Political Muse has heard variations of that, too:
In this continued series to examine the reasoning behind the opposition to the Crown Hydro Project, there has been expressed some concern that this facility will change the aesthetics of the area.
I have obtained some images of the proposed changes that would be made to the existing site:
(two images; before and after, here)
Now, if someone could please explain to me how this objection is in any way relevant to the discussion, then I would love to hear it. As it is, the proposed changes appear to be so minor that without the obvious before and after labels most people would be hard pressed to decipher which image is which.(Liberal In The Land Of Conservative)
Go to Liberal In The Land Of Conservative, and take a look for yourself. Then come back here, and give some feedback* - is the change to the scenery enough to block a project that is in the National and this State's energy policy interests?
You tell me.
* well, you can give some feedback at Political Muse's blog, too....
Ladies and Gentlemen, last Tuesday, I wrote a post about President Obama's Energy Plan, and how the Crown Hydro project fit in. In that story, I promised that later Minnesota's 25% by 2025 green energy goal would be discussed. Well, gentle reader, today's your lucky day!
If the internet's Wayback Machine went that far back, I'd link to a few stories about the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo that really put the screws to the American Economy. But, the Wayback Machine doesn't, so just assume for the moment that that embargo did indeed stick the screws to the good ol' USofA. I certainly remember having to check the license plate for an odd or even last number, to have the privilege to wait in line to buy gas. Not on my car; I'm not THAT old. But, I still remember. And that caused a whole bunch of people to take a real hard look at energy policy and how reliance on foreign oil is a problem - for us. For those foreign oil exporters, not. But again, for us it is; we have a serious dependency on, and massive transfer of wealth to, folk that all too often really don't like us too much. We'll get to some of those looks at the problem, in the years between then and now, later. Last Tuesday, we looked at President Obama's Energy Plan; today, we look at what our legislature did, and what the Governor signed off on*, in 2007, to address this problem. So, go below the fold, and let's look!
