All posts in the topic Midtown EcoEnergy Project (Short link)
Summary
- There are 24 posts — by 7 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Carol Greenwood at 2008 Jun 02 01:31 UTC
This is a topic that needs much more extensive discussion than initially occurred at the Development Committee last spring. I strongly recommend that people check out the website http://midtownecoenergy.com/ to get an overview and then look at the frequently asked questions, to get a sense of the 20 minute presentation made at the 10/15/07 Environment Committee. Following the presentation by Kim Havey and Craig Willson, we had a 50 minute question/answer/discussion session, ending by stating that we would be getting information from other sources so that we could provide people with a balanced view of the consequences that could arise, both positive and negative, from this project. We strongly recommend that people check "Twin Cities Daily Planet: Green fuel or greenwashing? By Dan Gordon, Special to the TC Daily Planet" http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/article/2007/08/26/green-burning-or-greenwashing.html and the latest issue of South Side Pride "Burner Facts Being Hidden" http://www.southsidepride.com/2007/10/articles/Burnerfactsbeinghidden.htm Both these articles bring up points that need to be considered before Seward even signs on to the good neighbor agreement, or tries to modify it. The main issue to keep in mind is this: will substituting a wood burning boiler displace enough other fuel combustion sources that the net health impacting pollution will be less in Philipps and adjacent neighborhoods than before the project goes into operation?. Secondly, can the managers comply with the statements they are making about fuel source, funding, committed purchasers, and traffic projections? Finally, could the property be more effectively used in some locally owned low impact business? Finally, are all their assertions of support and agreement accurate? We hope people will input on this topic.
The staff person at the MN Pollution Control Agency working on the revised
permit
is Paula Connell. e-mail <email obscured>
Carol brings up some great questions on the proposed Kandiyohi biomass plant, and I'll do my best to comment on them and provide information. Carol: "will substituting a wood burning boiler displace enough other fuel combustion sources that the net health impacting pollution will be less in Phillips and adjacent neighborhoods than before the project goes into operation?" This is a good question, but I'm not sure it's really the right one. Unfortunately, energy use in the US and Minnesota is still trending upwards, both per capita and in total. In my opinion, our society should focus on this at least as much as we focus on going to renewable sources. This is why the City helped develop the Minnesota Energy Challenge (mnenergychallenge.org) and has invested $70,000 this year in microgrants for neighborhood groups and others to work on decreasing energy use and increasing efficiency. The Mayor's 2008 budget includes another $100,000 to continue this good work (look here: http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/city-budget/2008recommended/docs/2008Rec Budget_CoordAdmin_Sec9.pdf). However, even with this good work, we're still looking at increasing energy use in this region. At this point, the reaction from utilities is too commonly still to invest in new fossil fuel or nuclear plants (coal gasification, the Big Stone II plant, etc.) Just this month, Moody's Investor's Service said this about the prospect of new Nuclear in the US: "The US electric utility sector is in the early stages of a massive new construction period to address its future base-load capacity needs. Given the practical realities associated with electric supplies, environmental trends and national energy security, we believe the sector will focus a considerable amount of attention on building new nuclear generation." For these reasons, I think a better question to ask is whether new biomass electrical and heat generation will displace likely future increases in fossil fuel and nuclear, which I believe are inherently worse than any biomass plant. The placement issue is real - burning anything anywhere creates toxins and particulate, and the impacts of these will typically be greater for those who live nearby. All other things being equal, however, I would rather have a new biomass co-generation plant in my backyard than a new coal plant in South Dakota. I wish this trade-off wasn't necessary (I wish we could meet our energy needs through non-combusting renewable sources and conservation), but I believe that it is. The two major reasons I prefer biomass to fossil are: a) biomass puts out significantly less of the most problematic toxins, including mercury, than coal and b) the trees burned by a biomass plant have sequestered the carbon that is being released, which makes it significantly more carbon-neutral than burning fossil fuels of any kind. Carol asks: "Secondly, can the managers comply with the statements they are making about fuel source, funding, committed purchasers, and traffic projections?" For me, these are the most important questions. No energy generation project is an unquestioned good. I'm interested in getting more information - not just commitments - from Kandiyohi about these topics. If they can't meet their fuel needs, it's simply not a biomass plant, and the whole conversation changes. We should have this sort of conversation before the plant is built, rather than after - when we have virtually no leverage to stop it. Another question that I haven't heard as part of this conversation: if the project has to bring wood in from outside the Metro, could this have an impact on the movement of pathogens, including Emerald Ash Borer? What precautions will Kandiyohi take to prevent having this impact on the region? Carol asks: "Finally, could the property be more effectively used in some locally owned low impact business?" I agree with David from ILSR that the loss of the community ownership aspect of this project is problematic. That was one of the better reasons to support this plant, and now it's not part of the proposal. Other than that, the question is pretty qualitative. I continue to believe that renewable (non-fossil, non-nuclear) energy is an important need and an effective use of land. The co-generation opportunities at this site (if Kandiyohi can get signed agreements from the nearby potential district energy users) argue for it being a good place for such a plant - if all of the above questions about fuel source and etc. can be answered. Lastly, Carol asks: "Finally, are all their assertions of support and agreement accurate?" It seems from my reading of the TC Daily Planet article that they are not, which certainly throws some of their other assertions into more doubt. I expect Kandiyohi to stop using letters of support for the old Green Institute project that is in significant ways apples-to-oranges different from the current proposal, and I'll be encouraging Cam to raise this point when Kandiyohi next comes before the Council. I hope this helps, Robin Garwood Council Aide, Second Ward Council Member Cam Gordon 612.673.3654 (office) 651.338.7699 (cell) http://secondward.blogspot.com
Greetings Seward folks,
Robin's comments pretty much sum up my feelings on this proposed project. I'm
a resident of Midtown Phillips living in a building that I hope becomes a part
of the district heating system that this project could provide. To help folks
further understand what a Combined Heat and Power (or co-generation) plant is
all about, how it works and why its far superior to centralized fossil fuel (or
nuclear) based electricity generation systems I recommend viewing this
Greenpeace produced video on CHP in Europe:
The video is almost 20 minutes long, but it is well worth the time.
I hope this is helpful.
Matty Lang,
Midtown Phillips
Matty, This is a very interesting and effectively produced video. I
totally support the concept of cogeneration/district heating (probably
the way we'd term it)
that achieves it's efficiency by using heating equipment to generate
power and power generating equipment to provide heat. One issue is that
the heat distribution requires
a fair amount of infrastructure disruption and investment (insulated
underground pipes routing hot water to heat exchangers, heat pump sinks,
or radiators).
The video does not discuss problematic air emissions that might be
generated at multiple sites around a community where dirtier fuels could
be used, or
how efficiently high combustion temperatures and various
filtration/precipitation devices can remove these emissions. Another
question is whether there will be
enough wood to sustain the Midtown Eco Energy operation as well as the
St. Paul District Heating facility. The use of other clean biowaste
(corn stover, straw,
buckthorn and the emminently famous switchgrass) is a possibility, but
could those materials better be used as the basis for bacterial
decomposition into transportation
fuel?
On Nov. 2, Paula Connell, the MPCA manager for this project stated, "I
wanted to give you a heads up on info for the public meeting that we
will be having for the Midtown Eco Energy draft permit. We have a
meeting scheduled for Thursday, December 13, from 6:00- 8:30. The
meeting will be at the Holy Trinity Lutheran Church, 2730 E. 31^st
Street, Minneapolis. Our formal public notice for the meeting will
be published in the Minneapolis Star Tribune on Nov. 9. We will be
sending out the notice to everyone who sent us comments and provided an
address. We also will be sending out a press release/notice to other
papers and publications, and will ask them to print it.
I don't yet have the dates for the actual comment period; we are still
working on a few issues re. the permit, but will have it ready to go
next week - which means the notice and comment period for the draft
permit will start about a week after the notice for the meeting. I
don't yet have an end date for the comment period, but it will be
sometime in January."
I'd recommend that people get this meeting on their calendars so they
can show up and ask the necessary questions. Hope to see you there.
Carol Greenwood
Matty Lang wrote:
> Greetings Seward folks,
>
> Robin's comments pretty much sum up my feelings on this proposed project.
I'm a resident of Midtown Phillips living in a building that I hope becomes a
part of the district heating system that this project could provide. To help
folks further understand what a Combined Heat and Power (or co-generation)
plant is all about, how it works and why its far superior to centralized fossil
fuel (or nuclear) based electricity generation systems I recommend viewing this
Greenpeace produced video on CHP in Europe:
This discussion TONIGHT will have relevance for the Midtown EcoEnergy
Project. I plan to
go and will report back.
"Dr. Paul Connett: Health Hazards of Incineration
Alan Muller, Green Deleware
Tonight, November 14, 7 p.m.
Macalaster College, Campus Center
1600 Grand (SW at Snelling & Grand)
A friendly reminder that tonight, Wednesday, November 14 at 7pm at
Macalester College Campus Center, lower level, Neighbors Against the
Burner is sponsoring a lecture by Dr. Paul Connett on the hazards of
incineration. The proposed building of a huge garbage burner at Rock-
Tenn (Cretin and I94) has serious health consequences for all of the
Twin Cities. Dr. Connett is a chemist, toxicologist and waste
management expert.
The Macalester Campus Center is located at 1600
Grand Ave. (SW corner of Snelling and Grand). "
Carol Greenwood
The MPCA sent out the following:
A public information meeting will be held from 6:00 to 8:30, at the
Holy Trinity Lutheran Church, located at 2730 E. 31st St. The open house will
be held from 6:00 to 6:30 followed by a presentation by MPCA from 6:30 to 7:00
p.m., folowed by a question and answer period until 8:30 p.m.
The public comment period begins Nov. 16 and ends Jan. 14, 2008 at
4:30 p.m. Comments must be received by that time. Comments must be presented
in writing but can also be FAXed.
Contact information: Paula Connell Air Quality Permits Section
Industrial Division,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Rd. No. St.
Paul, MN 55155
Phone - 651-282-2605
FAX - 651-296-8717
To comment on the draft/proposed permit go to:
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/news/data/index.cfm?PN=1
Or, you can request a copy of the draft permit in writing.
There is supposed to be copy of this document at the East Lake Library
We hope to see a lot of folks at this meeting.
Woops, Paula Connell left out the date, and I didn't catch it. The date is:
Thursday, December 13.
Our office has received a letter from Kim Havey, Project Director for Midtown
Eco Energy (MEE), clarifying one of the questions I raise above about fuel
sources. I quote:
"One item that has been raised is the confusion about Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF)
and the erroneous allegation that Midtown Eco Energy would use RDF as part of
its fuel supply. While Minnesota Legislature has a broad statement that allows
RDF to be included in the definition for biomass, MEE is not permitted to use
any RDF, per the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency which, as a site-specific
permit, is applicable over the legislative definition. In fact, the permit
expressly states in table A: ‘Refuse-derived fuels as defined in Minn. Stat.
Section 116.90 are not allowed to be burned in the boiler.' Moreover, the back
up fuel for Midtown Eco Energy, if necessary, will come from natural gas. The
boiler used will be able to utilize wood or naturat gas or a combination of the
two."
I’ve confirmed this information with Paula Connell from MPCA, who also
mentioned that MEE will be allowed under this permit to do “test burns” of
various other biomass types, including some agricultural products (grasses,
seeds, cobs, etc). She did make very clear that this would not include
garbage. If MEE decided at some point in the future that they wanted to burn
garbage, they would have to apply for an amendment to the proposed permit.
I hope this helps clarify at least one issue surrounding this proposed biomass
plant.
Robin Garwood
Aide to Second Ward Council Member Cam Gordon
This is a link to a Southside Pride article headlined "Meeting set for 'potential major source of pollution'. http://www.southsidepride.com/2007/11/articles/Meetingrpotentialpollution.htm Robin Garwood wrote: > Our office has received a letter from Kim Havey, Project Director for Midtown Eco Energy (MEE), clarifying one of the questions I raise above about fuel sources. I quote: > > "One item that has been raised is the confusion about Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) and the erroneous allegation that Midtown Eco Energy would use RDF as part of its fuel supply. While Minnesota Legislature has a broad statement that allows RDF to be included in the definition for biomass, MEE is not permitted to use any RDF, per the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency which, as a site-specific permit, is applicable over the legislative definition. In fact, the permit expressly states in table A: ‘Refuse-derived fuels as defined in Minn. Stat. Section 116.90 are not allowed to be burned in the boiler.' Moreover, the back up fuel for Midtown Eco Energy, if necessary, will come from natural gas. The boiler used will be able to utilize wood or naturat gas or a combination of the two." > > I’ve confirmed this information with Paula Connell from MPCA, who also mentioned that MEE will be allowed under this permit to do “test burns” of various other biomass types, including some agricultural products (grasses, seeds, cobs, etc). She did make very clear that this would not include garbage. If MEE decided at some point in the future that they wanted to burn garbage, they would have to apply for an amendment to the proposed permit. > > I hope this helps clarify at least one issue surrounding this proposed biomass plant. > > > Robin Garwood > Aide to Second Ward Council Member Cam Gordon > > Robin Garwood > Cooper, Minneapolis > Info about Robin Garwood: http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/robingarwood > > This topic's messages may be viewed at: http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/Fbq8WhdNHjoBsw4s8ZPea
Several groups are in the process of putting together comments opposing the
Midtown EcoEnergy Project, (2850 20th AVe. S. Mpls), as well as the RockTenn
Plant. (University and Vandalia). Both of these projects propose to burn wood
(tree trimmings, trunk grindings, etc.) to generate space heating, process
steam, and electricity. The objections are several:
In spite of the arbitary classification of wood as renewable and "carbon
neutral" by both state law, the EPA, and the Green E certification program,
wood combustion emits much more pollution and CO2 than natural gas.
Particularly problematic are the particles smaller than 10 parts per million
and the even smaller nanoparticles that can penetrate deeply into the lung, go
into the blood, and even penetrate brain cells. Also urban wood contains
incorporated pollutants deposited from air and soil into the trees, such as
mercury, and emits them when burned:
Figures from Xcel presented by Paul Connett, PhD, chemist and toxicologist
Pounds of pollutant per 1000 kWh produced
Natural Gas - CO2 - 1192 SO2 .005 Nitrogen Oxides 1.2,
Particulate
Matter, .07 Mercury 1 x 10-8
Biomass - CO2 3910 SO2 .6 Nitrogen Oxides 9.6 Particulate
Matter, 1.36 Mercury 1316 x 10-8
The same amount of money spent on conservation/energy efficiency and renewables
such as wind and sun would prevent much more CO2 and pollutants than generated
by these projects. Thus the net power available would be greater.
Both of these projects would emit pollutants in areas already highly impacted
by traffic and previous pollution, e.g. the Phillips Neighborhood and
surrounding neighborhoods arsenic superfund site. Many minorities live in or
near this site, thus compounding the impact of other factors associated with
environmental racism.
The attached report from the Green Institute shows insufficient clean wood
waste available even to completely power the St. Paul District Heating Plant
and the Rock Tenn plant. let alone Midtown EcoEnergy. Using construction and
demolition wood adds numerous toxic components to the waste stream.
A number of useful reports are linked to on:
http://www.neighborsagainsttheburner.org/rocktenn
http://www.neighborsagainsttheburner.org/ecoburner
Kandiyohi Partners will be attempting to secure Empowerment Zone bonding to the
sum of $78million of federally backed sums. Additional sums they anticipate
using, sources, and who gets profits from this project should be investigated
more fully. Also, what benefit would this project have for the citizens of
Minneapolis aside from
sale of the property and the subsequent property tax?
I'm sure Carl Nelson would be happy to give you more information, as would Tom
Welna. I will be contacting a toxicologist at the U. to comment on the air
toxics angle.
As you may know, the PCA is holding a permit hearing on December 13 at the Holy
Trinity Lutheran Church at 2730 E. 31st St. in Mpls. at 6:00 p.m. (open house)
and 6:30 presentation. Questions and answers are scheduled from 7:00 to 8:30.
Becca Vargo Daggett
<email obscured>
763.656.3982
Sent with my iPhone (please excuse any typos)
On Dec 9, 2007, at 6:48 PM, Carol Greenwood <email obscured>>
wrote:
Sorry for the blank message.
The concern about lack of biomass to burn is not insignificant. There
isn't enough for one project to go ahead, let alone both.
Also, I am concerned about the relationship between Lisa Goodman and
Kandiyohi. I read some time back that she owns a farm with one of the
partners, which strikes me as a conflict of interest. Last year, she
was floating the idea of municipally owned power generation. That
strikes me as a good idea for an economically viable project, but
there are many reasons to think that might not be the case here.
Becca Vargo Daggett
<email obscured>
763.656.3982
Sent with my iPhone (please excuse any typos)
On Dec 9, 2007, at 6:48 PM, Carol Greenwood <email obscured>>
wrote:
To add to Becca's comment, Councilmember Lisa Goodman co-owns property with Michael Kruse. They are apparently close friends. Michael Kruse is the lead developer and investor in the Midtown Eco Energy project. In light of this conflict Ms. Goodman should have abstained when the City Council voted to transfer the land to Midtown Eco Energy. Kim Harvey, who is one of the other lead partners in the enterprise, was formerly the director of the City's Empowerment Zone office, the very office that will be delivering the $70M+ check if this project gets the green light. Mr. Harvey is obviously well-connected with the powers that be in the City, particularly those holding the Empowerment Zone purse strings. I am not a conspiracy theorist -- I only point to these facts to bring the apparent improprieties to light. But it does make me wonder why the City has not deemed this issue one that is worthy of public notice or comment. $70M is a huge loan for the City -- one of the largest it has ever made. Leaving aside the environmental issues, the public should be given an opportunity to comment on this loan if there is even a whiff of controversy about it. And there is more than a whiff. On December 7, 2007, in a five-page letter to the MPCA, the Green Institute weighed in on the current version of the MPCA pollution permit application after a thorough analysis of the permit and has raised a variety of concerns. As it stands this project will be one of two things: (1) an incinerator that is able to function in the black because it burns toxic materials in the middle of a dense urban area, or (2) a project that fails because there is simply not enough clean wood for it to burn. I also query whether there is such a thing as "clean" urban wood because trees act as air filters and absorb the toxins in the air around them -- urban trees and wood are full of lead and mercury and other toxins and these will be released into the air when burned. The project's developers are taking on little risk here because the City bonds will pay almost all of the start-up costs. If the project fails, it is the City that will be left holding the bag -- there will be no one to sue, because the loan goes to the corporate entity. The City should, at the very least, demand an Environmental Assessment Worksheet before the loan is made. These Worksheets are required under state law for projects that plan to generate 25 Megawatts or more of electrical power to assess their social and environmental impacts. Midtown Eco Energy benchmarked their output at 24.5 MW to avoid the Environmental Assessment Worksheet requirement. This allows them to speculate about the how clean and green the project will be -- but we're really just guessing at this point. We should all be contacting the City Council and the Mayor's office to demand an Environmental Assessment Worksheet before the loan is made. Burners are 19th Century technology. There is nothing particularly new or novel about a "biomass" burner -- it's still an incincerator and to the extent it burns materials that release toxins it will make us sick. The State of Delaware, in recognition of these problems, has enacted a statewide ban on incinerator construction within THREE MILES of any residence, church, hospital or school. If you live in the area bounded by Harriet and Calhoun, the airport, the St. Paul border and downtown Mpls, you are well-within this radius. Please visit this site for more information and links about the current issues: http://burnerinfo.blogspot.com Please also attend the public meeting on Thursday December 13 at Holy Trinity Lutheran Church (2730 East 31st Street, parking lot between 27th and 29th on Lake) from 6 to 8:30 p.m. to learn more about the project and to voice any concerns you may have. Thanks to everyone who is staying on top of this issue, Dan Cooke <email obscured> 612-889-0180
It's my understanding that this is a federal loan guarantee, underwritten by some of the same banks that have been underwriting the sub-prime mortgages, and that may also be overextended, when those mortgages no longer perform as promised. Nevertheless, the city's most immediate economic interest is to generate income by the sale of a non-performing (or very low performing) property (currently used as a collection site for household waste voucher drop-offs, e.g. tires) and get property tax income, when the property goes into private hands. The question is, if this project doesn't perform as promised and goes into bankruptcy, will the city be left with financial liability of some kind? Another factor is, where is the additional money to finance this project coming from? We need more detail about this. David Morris of the Institute for Local Self Reliance says he has some information about it. I would have liked to see the agency that is considering sale of the property (hadn't been sold as a of a couple of weeks ago) do more investigation into the financial backing (or maybe they did, but it should be public information.) Carol G. Dan wrote: > To add to Becca's comment, Councilmember Lisa Goodman co-owns property with Michael Kruse. They are apparently close friends. Michael Kruse is the lead developer and investor in the Midtown Eco Energy project. In light of this conflict Ms. Goodman should have abstained when the City Council voted to transfer the land to Midtown Eco Energy. Kim Harvey, who is one of the other lead partners in the enterprise, was formerly the director of the City's Empowerment Zone office, the very office that will be delivering the $70M+ check if this project gets the green light. Mr. Harvey is obviously well-connected with the powers that be in the City, particularly those holding the Empowerment Zone purse strings. > > I am not a conspiracy theorist -- I only point to these facts to bring the apparent improprieties to light. But it does make me wonder why the City has not deemed this issue one that is worthy of public notice or comment. $70M is a huge loan for the City -- one of the largest it has ever made. Leaving aside the environmental issues, the public should be given an opportunity to comment on this loan if there is even a whiff of controversy about it. > > And there is more than a whiff. On December 7, 2007, in a five-page letter to the MPCA, the Green Institute weighed in on the current version of the MPCA pollution permit application after a thorough analysis of the permit and has raised a variety of concerns. As it stands this project will be one of two things: (1) an incinerator that is able to function in the black because it burns toxic materials in the middle of a dense urban area, or (2) a project that fails because there is simply not enough clean wood for it to burn. I also query whether there is such a thing as "clean" urban wood because trees act as air filters and absorb the toxins in the air around them -- urban trees and wood are full of lead and mercury and other toxins and these will be released into the air when burned. > > The project's developers are taking on little risk here because the City bonds will pay almost all of the start-up costs. If the project fails, it is the City that will be left holding the bag -- there will be no one to sue, because the loan goes to the corporate entity. The City should, at the very least, demand an Environmental Assessment Worksheet before the loan is made. These Worksheets are required under state law for projects that plan to generate 25 Megawatts or more of electrical power to assess their social and environmental impacts. Midtown Eco Energy benchmarked their output at 24.5 MW to avoid the Environmental Assessment Worksheet requirement. This allows them to speculate about the how clean and green the project will be -- but we're really just guessing at this point. We should all be contacting the City Council and the Mayor's office to demand an Environmental Assessment Worksheet before the loan is made. > > Burners are 19th Century technology. There is nothing particularly new or novel about a "biomass" burner -- it's still an incincerator and to the extent it burns materials that release toxins it will make us sick. The State of Delaware, in recognition of these problems, has enacted a statewide ban on incinerator construction within THREE MILES of any residence, church, hospital or school. If you live in the area bounded by Harriet and Calhoun, the airport, the St. Paul border and downtown Mpls, you are well-within this radius. > > Please visit this site for more information and links about the current issues: > http://burnerinfo.blogspot.com > > Please also attend the public meeting on Thursday December 13 at Holy Trinity Lutheran Church (2730 East 31st Street, parking lot between 27th and 29th on Lake) from 6 to 8:30 p.m. to learn more about the project and to voice any concerns you may have. > > Thanks to everyone who is staying on top of this issue, > Dan Cooke > <email obscured> > 612-889-0180 > > Dan Cooke > > Info about Dan: http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/dancooke > > This topic's messages may be viewed at: http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/3up5tudEnO67iTTKoqrLit
About half an hour ago these links appeared via a post on the Minneapolis Issues email list (which works the same way this Seward list does, but for the whole city). I don't think the links have been a part of the discussion on this Seward list; therefore, in case people might find them useful, I'm adding them now: ". . . links to the actual documents prepared by MPCA with regards to an air emissions permit for the proposed Midtown Eco-Energy facility. Public Notice document: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/news/data/bdc.cfm? noticeID=277808&blobID=19788&docTypeID=4 Draft Permit: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/news/data/bdc.cfm? noticeID=277808&blobID=19789&docTypeID=4 Technical Support Document for the draft permit: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/news/data/bdc.cfm? noticeID=277808&blobID=19790&docTypeID=4 (The third link is to quite a large file.) Hal Hal Johnson 2625 E. 24th St.
I emailed Tom Meersman at the Star Tribune. Here is his response to me:
"Dan,
Thanks for your e-mails. I am planning to look into this story in the near
future, and may well be contacting you. It is also not out of the question
that we'll have a reporter at tonight's meeting, although it cannot be me
because of a different assignment. I have talked with Steve Brandt, who covers
Mpls. city hall and a number of neighborhood issues. One or both of us will be
paying attention to the issues that you've raised. Many thanks!"
Steve Brandt followed up with a phone message saying he plans to be at the MPCA
meeting tonight to observe for a possible story.
- Dan
> It's my understanding that this is a federal loan guarantee,
> underwritten by some of the same banks that have been underwriting the
> sub-prime mortgages, and that
> may also be overextended, when those mortgages no longer perform as
> promised.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
Uh, no. Sub-prime lending and mortgage backed securities have nothing
to do with this. It would be tax-free municipal bonds, underwritten
by, according to the original resolution, Piper Jaffray.
However, I have looked at the original resolution approving the bonds,
and can't tell who is on the hook for the debt if Kandiyohi doesn't
generate enough to make the payments - the Feds or the City. Robin G,
can you clarify?
Becca
Erica at Metroblogging added to the conversation. http://minneapolis.metblogs.com/archives/2007/12/biomass_inciner.phtml MnSpeak has it too. Comments are interesting as usual and not too trashy (yet). http://www.mnspeak.com/mnspeak/archive/post-4432.cfm
For those of you who missed the MPCA public meeting on Thursday about the proposed Midtown incinerator at 28th and Hiawatha, it was quite lively. There were about 150 people there, the majority of whom were clearly opposed to the incinerator. I saw two city council members at the meeting: Cam Gordon & Scott Benson. After hearing everyone out Cam told me that he is reconsidering his approval of the project. I was surprised & disappointed that Gary Schiff was not in attendance. The MPCA is still soliciting ANY public comments about this project. The deadline to comment is 4:30 p.m. on January 14, 2008 and may be emailed to Paula Connell (MPCA Industrial Division) at <email obscured> All public comments will be taken into consideration in deciding whether to issue a permit. Possible steps include modifying the permit or requiring an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (paid for by the developers) to determine the facility's environmental and social impact on the community (the developers avoided this step by targeting output at 24.5 megawats, just shy of the 25 MW cutoff for a mandatory EAW). Please do what you can to make the developers pay for this study before they build! The most surprising and disturbing revelation was that City Councilmember Lisa Goodman is not only friends with the incinerator developers, she is also an INVESTOR in the project. Kim Harvey, who was the chief spokesperson for Midtown Eco Energy disclosed this in response to pressure from a Phillips neighborhood resident. This is outrageous! Dick Cheney may use his power in Washington to enrich companies in which he is an investor but at least he doesn't vote on the very bills that make him rich! Lisa Goodman is voting to enrich herself. It is worth noting that Kim Harvey also has significant connections with City Hall, having directed the Empowerment Zone committee for five years (the Empowerment Zone committee is the City department that is approving the $70M+ in funding for this project). The developers -- chiefly Kim Harvey -- reminded me a lot of snake oil salesmen. They handed out a snazzy brochure that used a cartoon character called "Ecoman" to explain why this project is somehow good for the environment (I'm not kidding). They also said they leafleted Phillips with the Ecoman brochure. The brochure says nothing about the air pollution that the MPCA permit will allow: one million pounds of toxins including mercury, lead, arsenic, dioxin, etc. If you don't think this stuff will make you sick you are sadly mis-informed. Dioxins are supertoxins, not found in nature, that may be the most toxic man-made substance known to science. Incinerators are the #1 source of dioxins and Midtown Eco Energy's permit allows them to pump them into our air. Incinerators also ADD to the greenhouse gases that cause global warming. Midtown Eco Energy's argument is that their plant will result in a net reduction in overall greenhouse gases because it will emit fewer greenhouse gases per megawatt of electricity than the coal we now rely upon. In the real world this is not what happens. The owners of the coal plants aren’t going to say, “gee, those folks down in Minneapolis aren’t buying as much of our electricity as they used to so I guess we’ll cut back on production.” Coal plants have huge overhead costs – they will operate at full capacity so long as there is a supply of coal. Another incinerator in Minneapolis will only increase the supply of electricity – it will not reduce overall output in the existing coal plants. If there is an excess supply of electricity the price of electricity might drop slightly in the short term. Cheaper electricity encourages people and businesses to use more electricity over time, not less. Not everyone is clean and green -- those who aren't will take advantage of cheaper electricity by using more. Building extra power plants is like building extra prisons. Extra prisons don’t reduce crime, they just provide more space to house prisoners. Extra power plants don’t reduce the output of the existing power plants. Therefore, what this project would do is create is an overall increase in global CO2 emissions, along with all of the other toxic side-effects that incinerators bring with them. If we let this burner go up in our neighborhood it will likely be there for 40 years. If the burner goes up it will drive out recycling, resource conservation and waste reduction solutions in our city. The burner will depend on fresh new loads of fuel every day -- be it loads of wood or whatever else slips into the fire, or whatever the MPCA allows them to burn when the plant applies for pollution variances down the road. The private owners will be driven to burn materials in order to pay off the bonds (unless they default on them, in which case its the taxpayers who will be left holding the bag). The need to feed the burner will discourage truly green solutions to energy issues in the Twin Cities for years to come. Call and write the City Council and the Mayor's office (what is Gary Schiff thinking???). Email Paula Connell at the MPCA <email obscured>) BEFORE the January 14, 2008 cutoff. We can stop this if we all speak up. Thanks. Dan Cooke http://burnerinfo.blogspot.com
Dan Cooke wrote: >Extra power plants don’t reduce the output of the existing power plants. Therefore, what this project would do is create is an overall increase in global CO2 emissions, along with all of the other toxic side-effects that incinerators bring with them. ML: While this may be true, building smaller, distributed combined heat and power generation plants such as the proposed Midtown Eco Energy facility can decrease the (perceived) need for new, very large coal-fired incinerators such as the monstrosity currently being proposed in South Dakota, just across the border (remember that emissions don't recognize borders). Building smaller, distributed combined heat and power facilities can also decrease the (perceived) need to extend the operations of two very large facilities that use nuclear reactions to boil water in order to turn turbines that generate electricity leaving behind "spent fuel" that is extremely toxic and will be for millions of years on an island on a sandbar in the middle fo the Mississippi river. Finally, building smaller, distributed combined heat and power generation facilities can reduce the (perceived) need to waste massive amounts of taxpayer resources on building new very large nuclear facilities such as is currently being proposed by Xcel Energy: http://www.startribune.com/business/12523151.html Distributed CHP facilities also reduce CO2 emissions by using the "waste" heat generated in electricity production to heat the buildings in the district heating system removing their heating requirements from our natural gas consumption. In addition, since smaller plants that don't transmit their electricity over long distances are much, much more efficient they do not need to consume as much fuel (and produce as many emissions) as large centralized plants in order to deliver the same number of kilowatt hours to the end user. Most energy policy experts agree that the best way (and cheapest way) to reduce carbon emissions is to consume less energy and to increase energy efficiency. Distributed generation and distribution is the way to accomplish this on the production side of the equation and is why a CHP plant in Midtown is beneficial to us from a climate change perspective. Of course, we need to make sure that local emissions are controlled with the best available technology and that any permit given has strict guidelines on what can and cannot be used for fuel (read: garbage is not acceptable). All of that typed, I don't think that I support this project as currently proposed (if I'm understanding all of the details properly). The developer ought to be required to use the best emissions control technology available, for one example. Another improvement in my opinion would be to use the CO2 emitted from this plant in urban greenhouses to produce local food. This is done in one of the Northern European examples of biomass-fired combined heat and power facilities in the Greenpeace video I linked to in an earlier post. My point is that rather than opposing this project, it's my belief that we should be pushing for it to be modified to an acceptable form. If this is possible, I don't know. To sum up my thoughts on this, if it's possible, this project ought to be drastically improved before it's approved. The improvements perhaps could also include a different ownership model--we don't need the current developers and their plan to see a CHP project happen here that can benefit our neighborhoods. Matty Lang, Midtown Phillips In completely unnecessary full disclosure, my home is located in the Midtown Exchange building which possibly would be a part of the district heating system.
Marty, You make some interesting and useful points about how decentralized incinerators would be more efficient than coal plants at generating electricity (and heat in the winter). But trying to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions from the supply side is tilting at windmills. If we replaced every coal-burning plant on the planet with de-centralized biomass burners we'd still have a greenhouse gas problem at current consumption levels. And we'd have some awfully sick human beings in about 10-30 years. I'll stick with my point: unless you take a coal plant offline when you build an incinerator you are merely adding to the greenhouse gas problem. Real world demand (remember, it's not just greens that use power -- plenty of selfish businesses use electricity too) will respond to a new incinerator by gobbling up the cheaper electricity. And then where are we? We're worse off by one incinerator -- and by 10,000 additional semi-truck deliveries per year -- when it comes to reducing worldwide human greenhouse gas output. And don't forget how a new incinerator will discourage recycling and waste reduction efforts for years to come because it will depend on waste for fuel. The global warming arguments just don't stand up to scrutiny when you plug this plan into a real-world economic model. That is enough of a reason in and of itself to NOT devote public resources or bonding to this project. If we want to focus Empowerment Zone or other public funding on energy issues, the funds should go toward solutions that will truly have an impact: wind, geothermal, solar, or -- best of all -- measures to REDUCE consumption. It's the demand side of the energy equation that is going to have an impact on real-world change. And when you add in the various ways that this plant will poison us -- which are very real and are often forgotten these days -- it's just a very, very bad idea. Mercury and dioxin (to take only two of the toxins that this thing will emit) will absolutely, positively increase the rates of neurological disease and cancer for all of us living, working and exercising downwind of this facility. And the damage will be worse for breast feeding infants. Do a little googling on dioxin if you don't believe me. It's a supertoxin that never leaves your body once you inhale it -- the damages it causes are irreversible. The fact that public funds may be used to build something that will poison us for generations is just outrageous. Dan Cooke http://burnerinfo.blogspot.com <email obscured>
I'm not trying to disagree with your concerns Dan; in fact I share them.
Admittedly, my previous post was a little sloppy and a bit hurried so I'll try
again to better communicate my thoughts.
I agree with you completely that we need to do a better job of how we use
energy on the consumption side through conservation and energy efficiency. On
the demand side, conservation means using less by going without (turning off
the lights or turning down the thermostat) and efficiency means using less
through more efficient appliances such as Energy Star rated refrigerators.
While we need to do this, it does not mean that we should not aim to make our
energy production more efficient as well, which is what distributed generation
accomplishes, thereby drastically reducing pollutant emissions. To illustrate
this, a traditional centralized large plant such as the Black Dog coal plant in
Burnsville or the Prairie Island nuclear facility in Red Wing run at efficiency
factors of about 30%. This means that the electricity that reaches consumers
from these plants only represents 30% of the energy that started in the coal or
the uranium. Around 70% of the energy in this scenario is lost through the
combination of the process necessary to generate steam to turn turbines (this
is the waste heat) and the fact that transmission lines lose electricity over
distance. The result is that more coal is burned which gives off more CO2,
more SOX, more NOX and more mercury. On top of this, in the winter time, all
of the customers served by the Black Dog coal plant have to heat their homes
and businesses resulting in natural gas being burned (and more CO2) or more
electricity needed to be generated (more coal being burned).
Compared to the above model, a typical CHP plant comes with an efficiency
factor of about 70 to 80%. This improved efficiency is accomplished by using
the waste heat from electricity generation to heat buildings in the winter
(taking away their heating energy requirements and resultant emissions) and by
saving electricity lost in transmission because the distance over which it is
transmitted is much, much shorter. What my last post neglected to mention is
that the waste heat in a CHP plant can also easily be used to cool buildings in
the summer eliminating their added cooling energy needs and the resultant
emissions.
My analysis says that if this project has strict restrictions on what can and
can't be used for fuel and it is required to use the best pollution control
technology available then it would be a net benefit to our neighborhoods and
our natural environment. The Green Institute originally proposed this project
and as far as I know the only things that have changed are the ownership model
(which can easily be criticized, I agree) and the analysis that says there
won't be enough biomass fuel over the long term. I don't think that the Green
Institute ever took the position that a CHP operation, even one fueled by
burning biomass, is a bad idea in general for environmental reasons. I meant
to ask my friend Diana at the Green Institute about this when I saw her last
week, but didn't get the chance.
Lastly, I'd like to share some thoughts on fuel. A hypothetical CHP plant in
Midtown could run on many different fuels. My preferred scenario is that it is
ultimately run on green hydrogen generated from our abundant wind and solar
resources in the Upper Midwest. We have vast wind and solar resources in our
region that are not being utilized. A CHP plant could either be powered by a
green hydrogen fired turbine (much like the retrofitted High Bridge plant in
St. Paul and the Riverside plant in MPLS, but with hydrogen rather than natural
gas for fuel) or a regenerative fuel cell system. The fuel cell system results
in zero harmful emissions while the hydrogen combustion system results only in
NOX. In the meantime, if the toxins can be kept from our neighborhoods (they
seem to be able to accomplish this with similar projects in Copenhagen and
Amsterdam) and an acceptable fuel supply can be secured we should work to make
this happen. Add my idea of using CO2 emissions in an urban greenhouse system
to produce local produce (and more jobs) and this project would become a slam
dunk--even if its impact were only as a demonstration. (Sorry for the sports
metaphor.) Imagine a transit-oriented redevelopment of the sadly suburbanized
Lake Street and Hiawatha intersection with a network of urban greenhouses on
the top of higher density, mixed-used buildings producing a sustainable local
food source, added tax base, and other benefits year round in Minneapolis.
Hmmmmmmmmm. . .
I'm certainly not an expert on the availability of biomass fuel and will leave
that to others to hash out. If a biomass fuel supply can be secured for a long
enough period to allow for the plant to be upgraded to a green-hydrogen powered
system in the near future (less than 10 years) than this hypothetical CHP plant
would be the shining example of clean energy in the entire country.
Thanks for reading,
Matty Lang,
Midtown Phillips
The Newsletter update on Midtown EcoEnergy Thanks to Mark Sulander for representing Seward's concerns on this issue. Carol Greenwood. Minneapolis Residents for Clean Air Newsletter Action Alert #10 http://mplsresidentsforcleanair.blogspot.com/ Friday, May 30, 2008 We've won several important victories in the fight against the Midtown Burner ...but the deal isn't over yet! Three major victories have been won during the last week: (For further details on each victory see below) * Xcel Energy ended talks with Kandiyohi Development Partners [KDP] * Mayor Rybak withdrew support for extending the current land-sale contract with KDP * The "Cumulative Impact" bill was signed into law by the Governor These are tremendous victories - and your actions have all made a difference. But the fight is not over yet!! In the past, KDP has been able to secure several extensions on contracts with the Minneapolis City Council and we're concerned that they'll be granted another. For the last 3 years, Kandiyohi Development Partners has struggled to meet contract requirements on the land sale for the proposed burner. Twice the Minneapolis City Council has granted extensions to the deadline, as well as amending contracts to make it easier for KDP to meet contract requirements. Most recently, KDP failed to produce a "power-purchase agreement" (a contract that would show that someone would actually buy the power generated by the facility) and the City of Minneapolis granted KDP another 60 day period to "cure the default" (in other words, meet the requirements). Kandiyohi has until June 9, 2008 to produce a power-purchase agreement from a viable utility company. As they work towards this goal, there are many hurdles for them to jump. But stranger things have happened! Recently, on the heels of Xcel's decision to end negotiations, Kandiyohi Development Partners sought meetings with three City Council members: Scott Benson, Robert Lilligren and Gary Schiff. In addition, many members still appear to support the project: Scott Benson, Sandy Colvin-Roy, Betsy Hodges, Diane Hofstede, Barbara Johnson, Paul Ostrow and Lisa Goodman (as an investor in KDP, Goodman has recused herself). Until the contract is officially terminated, anything is possible. What you can do now: You have made your concerns known - and it's made a powerful difference! Xcel listened. The Mayor listened. Now we need the City Council to do the same. As of today, only three City Council Members have taken a public position of opposition to this project, Gary Schiff (Ward 9), Cam Gordon (Ward 2) and Robert Lilligren (Ward 6). Tell the City Council to follow Xcel's lead and say NO to any contract extensions! Click here to find your City Council member: http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/council/ Details on the three recent victories that you helped achieve: XCEL ENDS TALKS WITH KDP On Thursday, May 22, representatives from Xcel contacted Minneapolis Residents for Clean Air with the following statement: "Northern States Power Company has ended negotiations with Midtown-Eco Energy, LLC, in connection with a proposed biomass plant in the Phillips neighborhood of Minneapolis. NSP's decision was based on a number of factors including its assessment of ongoing system portfolio needs." We would like to congratulate Xcel Energy on their decision. Xcel has set an example that leaders in the community can follow. This is a great victory for all of us, and could not have been won without your letters, phone calls and steady commitment. MAYOR RYBAK OPPOSES EXTENDING KDP CONTRACT Until recently, Mayor Rybak was a strong supporter of the Midtown Burner project. However, in a May 27 Finance and Commerce article about Xcel's decision to not purchase power from KDP, the Mayor's staff represent a very different position: "The Mayor does not support extending this contact and is disappointed that these folks weren't able to live up to what our expectations were," said Jeremy Hanson, spokesman for the mayor. You can find the Finance and Commerce article at: http://www.finance-commerce.com/article.cfm/2008/05/28/Xcel-leaves-developers-powerless-on-Midtown-Burner-project "CUMULATIVE IMPACT" BILL BECOMES LAW Governor Tim Pawlenty has now signed the bill containing a provision requiring a "cumulative impact study" of all pollution sources in the area of the Midtown Burner before any permit can be issued that would allow a power plant to be built. The "Cumulative Impact" bill, now a law, means that no permit can be issued for the Midtown Burner without considering the impacts from all sources of pollution in the area, past and present -- making it very difficult for the developer to gain a permit for the project. The new law not only protects Phillips Community, but also sets a groundbreaking precedent that will push state agencies to consider "cumulative impacts" when considering permits for other polluters in other communities. This is a powerful new tool for all communities concerned about public health, environmental racism and environmental justice. THANK YOU FOR TAKING ACTION TOGETHER, WE CAN CONTINUE TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE Jullonne Glad Juliet Thompson Betsy Sohn on behalf of Minneapolis Residents for Clean Air an ad hoc group of community volunteers
Need help? Please contact technical support. To support your forum, please donate.
Hosted by E-Democracy.Org. Powered by OnlineGroups.Net using GroupServer.