All posts in the topic Crown Hydro update re Senate bill? (Short link)
Summary
- There are 31 posts — by 10 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Bill Kahn at 2009 Apr 12 14:23 UTC
| From | File | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Bill Kahn | proposedCH_term_sheet.pdf | 2009 Apr 08 12:43 UTC |
| Shawne FitzGerald | Opinion on Crown Hydro Site Development 10-18-08.p | 2009 Apr 08 16:49 UTC |
FYI, Eden Prairie is no stranger to seeking state monies for projects in
Eden Prairie! Communities all across our state seek funds from the
Legislature that benefit those communities. But that doesn't give me, a
resident of Minneapolis, a voice in those communities. I am still waiting
for the day when the Eden Prairie City Council wants to give Minneapolis
residents "a say" in their road building and expansion projects.
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.
Jim Bernstein
Fulton
Jim, that's a very simplistic "apples-oranges" argument you just made. Here's the website of the Campaign Finance Board, where oreganizations and lobbyists have to register how much they spent trying to influence legislation and/or diverting taxpayer dough to their organizations: http://www.cfboard.state.mn.us/lobby/LobPrincipalExpend_Current.html For the years 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 the Park Board spent $120,000. annually, lobbying legislators to fork over taxpayer dough, except for the year 2006 - when they only spent $114,306.59 Now, the City of Eden Prairie doesn't pay lobbyists - unlike the Park Board. Does the City of Eden Prairie get some state dough back, for specific projects? Sure - but Eden Prairie isn't actively there, each and every year, schmoozing legislators the way the Park Board's hired guns do. Why does the Park Board spend so much dough - $120,000 yearly, for the last six years - schmoozing legislators? Because - according to the Park Board - state tax dollars diverted to Minneapolis' parks are essential to running the park and building park infrastructure; such as the $3.5 MILLION the legislature gave to the Park Board for the East Phillips Cultural Community Center. In fact, in 2007, according to: http://www.minneapolisparks.org/documents/about/2007_annual_financial_report.pdf 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 property taxes. It would seem to me that an organization, and those served by it, would be wise to consider the opinions of those funding 30.9% of total revenues. Then again, "wisdom" seems to be in short supply amongst the NIMBYs around here.... Furthermore, it would seem to be that an organization that spent more in legal fees last year than the entire City of Eden Prairie, wouldn't want to get into a comparison argument over who spends taxpayer money more wisely. I wonder how the Park Board's financial management compares with, say, the Three Rivers Park District's financial management? Perhaps rather than the City of Minneapolis taking over Park Board functions, perhaps a better steward of taxpayer monies would be the Three Rivers Park District? You know, "economies of scale", and such? Is this really the line of discussion people really want to go down? Personally, I don't. For all of the bluster of those worried about nonsense like earthquakes (what's next - meteors?), it needs to be pointed out - once again - that the Crown Hydro power plant would be underneath what is now a parking lot; that the discussion is about how this state needs local and green sources of energy, that the Crown Hydro project is - by definition and by law (Minnesota State Statute 103G.535) , and I quote: "a VALID public purpose" (emphasis added). And that same valid public purpose would also require, according to the same State Statute, and again I quote: "Subd. 5.Contents of development agreement.(a) An agreement for the development or redevelopment of a hydropower site must contain provisions to assure the maximum financial return to the political subdivision or the commissioner." Quite frankly, the Park Board turning down "the maximum financial return" demanded by state statute, for leasing ground under a parking lot that meets federal and state goals for lessening dependence on foreign energy, is NOT going to play well in Greater Minnesota, let alone Eden Prairie. Especially next year, when the Park Board spends what past performance indicates will be another $120,000, schmoozing legislators to get more state taxpayer dough. While Park Board Lobbyist MaryAnn Campo may think $300,000 a year to the Park Board is essentially "chump change" - many will not. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sVLj86AqyF8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sVLj86AqyF8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> I don't think that's going to play well at all - especially to those living in the shadows of the Prairie Island and Monticello nuke plants; especially to those in the shadows of the Sherco coal-fired plant.
Mr. Johnson, the earthquakes have already happened. The first Hennepin Av.
Bridge and the subsequent bridges, the Nicollet Island Bridge, the Stone Arch
Bridge, the railroad bridges where tons of freight shake the land each day, the
2.9 miles of tunnel, the Eastman tunnel disaster, the logging which both
battered the falls and denuded the oak savanah, the apron on the falls, the
boat lock, the fall and later erection of the 35W bridge, the removal of three
islands to make way for the lock, etc. etc.
Your argument for Crown Hydro's proposal centers on accusations of NIMBYism,
far left political stance, and slightly veiled accusations of air-headedness to
mention earthquakes.
You have nothing to counter the fact that Crown Hydro tried an end run around
the law through the legislature in order to take precious park land after they
had been roundly denied by MPRB, the city, the Historical Preservation folks,
and a myriad of others.
As your latest sally, you suggest that the right to govern ourselves be taken
away from Minneapolis and put into the hands of the county.
But in all those postings, Mr. Johnson, you have not made a cogent case for the
Crown Hydro proposal. You have name called, sneered, and generally attacked any
opposition, but not the position of the opposition.
***
You have nothing to counter the fact that Crown Hydro tried an end run around
the law through the legislature...
***
This is one of the most amusing arguments of all; if it wasn't for park
supporters pulling an end-around around the city of Minneapolis, there wouldn't
be a Park Board.
And wasn't it the Park Board, that recently pulled an end-around, around the
city of Minneapolis, to get the legislature to enact a Park Impact fee?
So, in your world, Wizard - it's ok when those that you agree with pull an
end-around, but NOT when those you disagree with do??!?
Quite frankly, Wizard - your arguments deserve far more scorn and ridicule than
I'm tossing, and it's for the old-fashioned reason - your arguments DESERVE
scorn and ridicule.
Tell me, Wizard - do Minneapolis building codes require building sky-scrapers
to withstand earthquakes? If not, perhaps you've found your next quixotic
calling...
***
But in all those postings, Mr. Johnson, you have not made a cogent case for the
Crown Hydro proposal.
***
If you honestly feel that way, Wizard - then you simply haven't been paying
attention.
I started writing about Crown Hydro in early February - and all I hear from
obstructionists like you is NIMBYism and fear-mongering.
And I'm not the one that's suggesting that the right of the Park Board - once
again, created by an end-around around the city of Minneapolis - be taken away;
that's an argument made by your fellow Minneapolitans.
And as I see it, it's people like you that give the Charter Commission plenty
of ammo for making their argument.
While you take the micro view, it's time Park Board Commissioners look at the
macro and consider all of the stakeholders in this project.
There is an urgent need for renewable energy; hydro power is - by definition
and statute a "valid public purpose" - and the prevailing attitude seems to be
"not my problem; and even if it was Not In MY Back Yard."
I'm beginning to wonder if the rumors that the Park Board simply is waiting
Crown Hydro out; that after Crown Hydro bails the Park Board takes the project
over might have merit.
Tommy
Your continuous rants on how Hydro is green so this project should happen are
getting tiring.
Has anyone argued that somehow Hydro is not green?
Hydro being green is not THE justification for this project happening.
CH is doing an end run around the Park Board, Minneapolis, Heritage
Preservation and I have not kept track of whom else is opposed to CH.
And then there is the plant across the river that can do what CH plans to do,
and its already there. So that would make it GREENER than CH. If somehow its
not capable, then why was there an application made to run at higher capacity
made years ago (one that if I remember postings correctly, was denied for flow
issues). Is there some provision that now does not allow XCEL to remake this
application?
As for the Park Board existing because of an end run, that sound like a
different issue all together. Start a thread on it if you want to discuss.
As for the Park Board taking on this project once you CH boosters go away,
think again that I will somehow change my tune on this project. I will not
attempt to speak for anyone lese here, but I bet there are others that feel
that very same way.
Can you come up with some new and cogent arguments for CH to shove this project
down the throats of so many that do not want it where CH wants it?
*** Can you come up with some new and cogent arguments for CH to shove this project down the throats of so many that do not want it where CH wants it? *** Crown Hydro: Remember that Barack Obama carried every Minneapolis precinct by: TwoPuttTommy Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 05:45:00 AM CST Yep - on November 4th, 2008, now-President Obama won in each and every Minneapolis precinct; in some precincts taking over 87.6% of the vote. Clearly, Minneapolis' citizens voted overwhelmingly for President Obama and his plans. A key campaign platform was called New Energy For America. A key plank in that platform was President Obama's call for 10 percent of our electricity production from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025. If that "25 by 2025" sounds familiar, here in Minnesota, it's because it is - and we'll get to that later. For now, I'm going to talk about how the Crown Hydro project is a perfect example of what President Obama is looking for when he's talking about in his energy plan. According to the International Hydropower Association, "Hydropower currently offsets 2.1 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions each year. If developed, the remaining realistic hydropower potential would offset a further 7 billion tonnes. Year after year, this would be equivalent to saving: • some 37% of current total world emissions, or • three times the annual emissions of all cars on the planet." Let's look at how the Crown Hydro Project fits in: - - rest of story, here: http://mnprogressiveproject.com/diary/2604/barack-obama-carried-every-minneapolis-precinct *** *** Crown Hydro - I couldn't have said it better by: TwoPuttTommy Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 14:06:18 PM CST I became aware of the Crown Hydro Project, just after Populista posted his "Obama EPA blocks Big Stone II" story. "Taxpaying Liberal" sent me an email, which I posted as a comment on Populista's aforementioned thread. I suggest that readers go back to Populista's post, here, and read or re-read "Taxpaying Liberal's comments. Here's the last line of Taxpaying Liberal's comments: ***Now tell me again why progressives object to Crown Hydro.*** After I read and posted those comments, I started asking questions. And one of the first things I heard is the subject of a post by Political Muse on his blog, "Liberal In The Land Of Conservative." Link here: http://liberalinthelandofconservative.blogspot.com/2009/02/crown-hydro-objections-pt-1.html Again, I couldn't have said it better. But, I'll probably try, in a future blogpost here at MnProgressiveProject.com **** **** Crown Hydro and Minnesota's 25 by 2025 Energy Plan by: TwoPuttTommy Thu Feb 12, 2009 at 05:45:00 AM CST 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!
Tommy
None of these arguments for CH are new, cogent yes, but not new.
Just because this is being painted green does not justify it happening. And
yes, I have NO problems with the green paint job.
Again, why this project here now when its NOT wanted by so many? Park board
said NO. Minneapolis said NO. Historic preservation said NO. Other
organizations I don't have the names of have said NO. Many citizens have said
NO.
Stop screaming GREEN as the only reason this project should happen at this
point on the river or this point in time. Just because its GREEN does not make
it RIGHT. GREEN does not automatically equal RIGHT.
Is there some reason CH people cant find a different GREEN project to work
forward? Are there NO other GREEN projects that can happen that are less
negatively received? Or maybe this is being forced forward because someone
bought some generators and cant return them? Come on Tommy, your not a total
idiot that cant come up with some other talking point besides 'it GREEN so it
the right thing'
Ron Leurquin
Nokomis East
This tactic employed by the Crown Hydro gang has a name: green washing.
Their other major tactic has a name, too: character assassination.
They have no need for cogent arguments or messy facts.
Leurquin, Ronald wrote:
> Tommy
> None of these arguments for CH are new, cogent yes, but not new.
>
> Just because this is being painted green does not justify it happening. And
yes, I have NO problems with the green paint job.
>
> Again, why this project here now when its NOT wanted by so many? Park board
said NO. Minneapolis said NO. Historic preservation said NO. Other
organizations I don't have the names of have said NO. Many citizens have said
NO.
>
> Stop screaming GREEN as the only reason this project should happen at this
point on the river or this point in time. Just because its GREEN does not make
it RIGHT. GREEN does not automatically equal RIGHT.
>
> Is there some reason CH people cant find a different GREEN project to work
forward? Are there NO other GREEN projects that can happen that are less
negatively received? Or maybe this is being forced forward because someone
bought some generators and cant return them? Come on Tommy, your not a total
idiot that cant come up with some other talking point besides 'it GREEN so it
the right thing'
“This tactic employed by the Crown Hydro gang has a name: green washing.
Their other major tactic has a name, too: character assassination.
They have no need for cogent arguments or messy facts.”
Cogent arguments for this project both pro and con can be made. In fact they
can be made for any project that involves switching from our dependence on coal
to better or different alternatives.
I worked on a campaign for a guy who was a wind energy advocate. And the
arguments against wind were many of the same arguments we find here, it’s
noisy, takes up a lot of space, can be inefficient, unreliable and expensive.
It also was dangerous to migrating birds. So the wind guys and the opposition
got together and solved or compromised on these issues because they all knew
that expanding wind production was a better option than expanding coal
production.
The best argument against Crown Hydro and one that I agree with is the
preservation of the historical site and the use of public land for private
profit.
Maybe I’m missing some other “facts” as the previous poster has implied.
Some have stated that there is no need for more Hydro production because of
the Xcel plant on the other side of the river.
There are a few problems with this argument that those of you who have made it
can help solve.
Can you site where you come up with the source of the claim that the Xcel plant
can produce the same amount of energy that Crown hydro will provide by
upgrading? Because that’s not what Xcel is saying.
It is true that the 2nd CH location could not have been built without
unacceptable risk to historic ruins. But can anyone point out what historic
site is in danger from the current site? I know that some have claimed that the
cap rock or tail race is in danger but the engineers from the U and the Army
disagree with this assessment. Is there data to support this claim?
The use of public property for private gain is they thorniest issue and I
suspect that agreement will never be reached. But then again, we do it every
day. The vendors who sell items on public land like the concession agreement,
arts production, wyfi, mineral leases, Ports, lock and dams, shipping, rail are
all making some profit. Because so much of the open land in Hennepin County is
public land, should that land be used for wind turbines?
Is it more important to try to “freeze” public land and never change what it
is, or can public land be used to serve a greater public good. Once again I
feel the need to point out that President Obama has stated the need for
increasing our energy production and diversifying away from coal. Every hydro
electric power station in our country and Canada is located on public land and
most of the ones in this country are for profit. Is that wrong?
Chris Johnson wrote:
***
This tactic employed by the Crown Hydro gang has a name: green washing.
Their other major tactic has a name, too: character assassination.
***
Oh
My
God.
Chris Johnson, one of the founders of ParkWatch, who's whole schtick is :
"The Park Board is filled with lying/thiving/incompetents"
is complaining about "character assassination"??!?
ROFLMAO!!!
Let's look at some of Chris Johnson's recent posts, here on the Mpls Issues
List:
***
***
From: Chris Johnson Date: Mar 19 21:38 MDT
As is all too often the case in Ms. Carlson's statements like these, she is
lying by omission, intentionally misleading and splitting hairs on the
definition of words like "no." Some folks would just say it's plain lying.
***
***
From: Chris Johnson Date: Mar 13 00:33 MDT
He wrote his letter after being contacted by a constituent, an officer of
Crown Hydro. He wrote his letter after hearing only information from that
constituent and from nobody critical of it.
(note - Chris Johnson is talking about Paul Wellstone; apparently - in Chris
Johnson's world - it's ok to rip the dearly departed...)
***
***
From: Chris Johnson Date: Feb 22 00:44 MST
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. "Van Jones" on the other hand,
appears to never be right about anything.
***
***
From: Chris Johnson Date: Feb 21 13:08 MST
Fact 1: Crown Hydro is all about making a profit for a few investors.
One in particular is William Hawks, of 3465 Co. Rd. No. 44, Minnetrista, the
infamous host of the Dick Cheney fundraiser for Michele Bachmann.
***
***
From: Chris Johnson Date: Feb 07 14:16 MST
Can we disband the city council, and say,
give the entire city to Bloomington? At least their city council seems
somewhat sane.
***
***
If there's anyone that knows about "character assassination" - it's Chris
Johnson.
And he seems to be proficient in hypocrisy, too.
Thomas
Can you fill in the blanks for those of us that wonder what XCEL was saying in
the 80's when they applied for a permit to run at higher capacity but were
denied? Were they somehow capable of higher capacity then and not now?
Something isn't adding up, and XCEL isn't really talking to anyone I know.
Ron Leurquin
Nokomis East
Thomas wrote:
Some have stated that there is no need for more Hydro production because of
the Xcel plant on the other side of the river.
There are a few problems with this argument that those of you who have made it
can help solve.
Can you site where you come up with the source of the claim that the Xcel plant
can produce the same amount of energy that Crown hydro will provide by
upgrading? Because that's not what Xcel is saying.
“Can you fill in the blanks for those of us that wonder what XCEL was saying in
the 80's when they applied for a permit to run at higher capacity but were
denied? Were they somehow capable of higher capacity then and not now?
Something isn't adding up, and XCEL isn't really talking to anyone I know.”
They weren’t denied, they withdrew the application when it became apparent that
the opposition to their expansion could tie them up for years and the small
amount of extra energy produced could not justify the large amount of extra
expenses incurred by expanding the site. The investment in new turbines,
permits, etc… not to mention the political expenses make expanding the site
unrealistic.
Xcel has spoken up about the Crown Hydro project. They support it. They have
pledged millions in grants to help with construction and have signed a purchase
agreement to buy the energy.
The same groups that opposed Xcels (NSP)expansion supported adding a run of
the river generating plant across the river. At the time, the area was run down
and the city and met council were looking for investors to help revitalize the
area. The idea was not only to generate clean energy but also join with the
city and latter the MPRB (after being granted the land from the Met Council) in
revitalizing that area.
It seemed the perfect fit, building a Hydro power plant in the area known for
providing hydro power that started this city.
So the 1st plan was to place the generator in the basement of the Crown roller
building which was in the process of being restored. This was before there
were any condominiums in the area. Crown Hydro had the support of Xcel, the
city, MPRB, and most of the other stakeholders. They applied for and were
granted the FERC permit with the help of Paul Wellstone and others.
There were some engineering problems with placing the turbines in the Crown
roller building so the MPRB and city invited Crown Hydro to change to building
in the 2nd proposed site as a joint effort to restore the park and historic
area. But as we all know, there was no way to get this done without risk to the
ruins.
Crown made several critical mistakes. By proposing this site (even though they
were invited to do so) they raised the profile of the project. The opposition
gained the support of some historic preservation groups (rightly so in my
opinion). They underestimated the opposition by thinking that an
environmentally friendly project that was once part of an area redevelopment
project would be greeted with flowers and candy.
By now the original investor’s had run dry. It cost millions to get the FERC
approval, engineering, river studies etc..
And of course by now the area had changed and some of the wealthiest and most
politically connected people in the area had move into the new condominiums
across the street.
And now we have a 3rd proposed site, below the parking lot next to the Lock and
Dam. I’m guessing that if this was the 1st proposed site the plant would be up
and running and we wouldn’t be talking about this today. No ruins, the water
is already flowing around the falls, no neighbors, millions for MPRB in
payments, etc…
It’s time to but to bed the idea that Xcel is going to expand their hydro
production across the river should Crown Hydro fail. It ain’t going to happen.
There is no reason to believe that any investor would not look at the fight
that Crown has had and believe that tying up millions for years is a good idea,
because even projects that are supported today could be opposed and stopped
years from now by new opposition not yet on the radar.
This project is about more than producing 2.5 MW of clean power or preserving
historic sites. Both are needed. Both sides have been right and both sides have
been wrong.
But right now there is enough water flowing around the falls through the
existing tailrace system to produce 2.5 MW of clean renewable power that has no
adverse environmental impact. There are few places in the world that can say
the same thing. And if this project fails, then that resource will be wasted
forever because no sane investor will ever try this again. And using our
resources wisely and having diversity in our generating capacity is the only
way we are going to reduce our dependence on coal.
QUOTE FROM BECKFIELD: "And if this project fails, then
that resource will be wasted forever because no sane investor will ever
try this again.
RESPONSE: I have complete faith in the supporters of this to keep pushing this
no matter how many times the elected officials of Minneapolis say NO. This is
city land not state land and should be decided by city not state officials. If
we expand hydroelectric power at the site, it should be part of the existing
XCEL plant. I as a Minneapolis citizen would support this as long as we
understand the environmental impacts.
Carl Holmquist
CARAG
“RESPONSE: I have complete faith in the supporters of this to keep pushing this
no matter how many times the elected officials of Minneapolis say NO. This is
city land not state land and should be decided by city not state officials. If
we expand hydroelectric power at the site, it should be part of the existing
XCEL plant. I as a Minneapolis citizen would support this as long as we
understand the environmental impacts.”
Just a few things I’d ask the poster to consider.
There is currently water being diverted on the west side of the river through
the tail race. Enough water to run the plant. The FERC was very specific about
maintaining the level of the pool above the falls (about a foot and a half
leeway). Any expansion of the Xcel site on the other side of the river will not
be able to utilize that water and will detract from the production that could
have been accomplished. The west side water is being used by the MPRB to
enhance the beauty of the park. (Crown Hydro will not affect the flow
negatively). I suspect that an expansion of the Xcel site will have to take
into consideration the amount of flow over the falls and also the impact of the
tail race system on the west side of the river.(at least I hope so)
Flow over the falls was a primary concern of many of the original objection and
was raised by Mr. Mondale when he incorrectly asserted that flow would be
affected by as much as 90% in his letter to the Park Board. So to expand the
Xcel site would require that the west side tail race be shut down or flow
curtailed or Xcel would have to make do with less water than the Crown site.
Pick you poison but keep in mind that Xcel will need a certain amount of flow
to recover the millions you are asking it to invest.
Also if we expand at the Xcel site the MPRB would lose out on Millions in lease
payments and shared revenue.
The other thing I’d like people to consider is that Xcel has no plans to expand
that site and if they did (they don’t) it would take many, many years to
accomplish. In the mean time 18,000 tons of CO2/year still enter the
atmosphere.
“If we expand hydroelectric power at the site, it should be part of the
existing XCEL plant.”
There is no “we”. The expansion of Xcel’s site is Xcels decision followed by
approval by a whole host of agencies.
How are “we” going to expand Xcel’s site? Are “we going to put up the money
required to do this? Are “we” going to force Xcel into this? Are we going to do
something with the existing turbines that are already there and have been paid
for a long time ago?
What are “we” basing this decision on? How much extra production can we expect
out of upgrading Xcels site? Do “we” know?
Of course none of this matters because there is no plan to expand on the east
side of the river.
Point of clarification: I consider MInneapolis park commissioners as
responsible and are city officials because they are elected by Minneapolis
citizens. I don't consider this the perview of the cirty council.
Peace,
Carl Holmquist
> --- On Mon, 4/6/09, Thomas Beckfeld <email obscured>> wrote:
> Xcel has spoken up about the Crown Hydro project. They support it. They have
pledged millions in grants to help with construction and have signed a purchase
agreement to buy the energy.
The "millions" "pledged" are from the state-mandated, rate-payer financed
renewable energy fund. It's not out of the goodness of Xcel's heart, nor
their desire to invest in companies like Crown Hydro. It's a cheap, easy, low
risk way for them to meet their legal obligations to the state, in return for
being allowed to store spent nuclear fuel in the river bottom of the largest
river in the USA. But never mind those inconvenient details, right?
The power purchase agreement Xcel has with Crown Hydro is favorable and of low
risk to Xcel. Why would they not sign it?
Since Xcel stands to benefit financially in the short term if Crown Hydro is
built (having already committed some of the state-mandated renewable energy
fund to the project and negotiated a favorable, low-risk power purchase
agreement), and since in all likelihood, Crown Hydro is lobbying Xcel in
addition to everyone else, does anyone really expect Xcel to make any sort of
controversial statement in opposition to Crown Hydro?
Xcel's statements regarding ability to upgrade their power plant in the 1980s
would be much more illuminating than Crown Hydro propaganda.
Thomas Beckfeld wrote:
> There is currently water being diverted on the west side of the river through
the tail race. Enough water to run the plant.
Prove that statement. Every time I've been down there, and every statement
I've read in print during presentations and hearings at the Park Board are in
direct opposition to that statement. Unless something dramatically changed
recently, the water in that tail race is a trickle compared to the amount need
to run Crown Hydro. Just skip trying to deceive based upon the current high
water flow in the river, just as there is every spring. Address the reality
that most of the year, the flow is much lower.
I don't care to waste my my time wading back through dozens and dozens of old
FERC documents to disprove it, but I don't recall FERC ever being concerned
with the amount of flow over the Falls. Those concerns, even when present in
documents filed with FERC, have always been made by stakeholders, such as the
Park Board (on behalf of citizens) and the Corps of Engineers (on behalf of
being able to operate their locks). Since Mr. Beckfeld made the assertion
that FERC was concerned, it's his responsibility to provide the proof. A link
to a viewable document on the FERC web site will be adequate.
Chris Johnson wrote: *** Prove that statement. Every time I've been down there, and every statement I've read in print during presentations and hearings at the Park Board are in direct opposition to that statement. Unless something dramatically changed recently, the water in that tail race is a trickle compared to the amount need to run Crown Hydro. *** Here Chris Johnson goes, once again, demonstrating his complete lack of knowledge regarding Crown Hydro - or worse. *** *** Crown Hydro Update - The Park Board Already Takes Water From The River by: TwoPuttTommy Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 15:55:41 PM CDT I've been looking at engineering drawings, received from the Park Board via a Request for Public Data, for the Mill Ruins Park Tunnel Stabilization Project that was completed 3 years ago. In a nutshell, the Park Board draws water out of the Mississippii River, at essentially the same spot the Crown Hydro Project would, and runs water under the boardwalk through a 3 foot diameter pipe so tourists can see what water coming out at the tailrace looks like. I had asked the Park Board about water taken from the Mississippi River and channeled through the tailrace near the proposed Crown Hydro project by the MPRB for the years 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008. The response I got from the Park Board is, and I quote: ***"The MPRB has no data responsive to - water takeout from the Mississippi River and channeled through the tailrace near the proposed Crown Hydro project by the MPRB for the years 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008."*** This is a three foot diameter pipe we're talking about. So I called the Contractor's Civil Engineer for the poject, and asked how much water went through that three foot pipe. Keep in mind how wide the river is, at the St. Anthony Falls area, and that we're just talking about a 3 foot pipe. He told me easily 150 cfs (cubic feet per second) would be flowing through that pipe. Crown Hydro's engineer told me a three foot pipe at that point could easily take up to, if not over, 300 cfs of water through the pipe. Here's my point - since a major objection of those opposing Crown Hydro is diverting "more" water from the falls, and since the Park Board is already diverting water away from the falls, if the Crown Hydro project simply took the water the Park Board was diverting for purely and only aesthetic reasons, there could be clean and green energy generated with no net loss of water over the falls. The water that Crown would use would end up in the exact same place as the water the Park Board now uses to keep the tourists "happy" by something to look at; the tailrace. And again, keep in mind - this is just with the water going through a 3 foot diameter pipe the Park Board already uses; 2 or 3 (possibly 4) more of those three foot diameter pipes is apparently all it would take to provide all the water for Crown Hydro to run at full capacity and provide electricity for over 2,000 Minneapolis homes. Keep that total of three or four (or even five) pipes in mind, while you look at this picture of St. Anthony Falls. And keep that in mind, while considering there's a hearing in two days that might open the door for more nuclear plants in Minnesota. Right now, there's electricity going down the river that's NOT electricity; how soon until there's another nuclear plant built - because projects like the Crown Hydro Project weren't built? ****Wednesday, March 25, 2009 - 6:30 PM Joint Meeting: Committee on Energy, Utilities, Technology andCommunications and Legislative Energy Commission and House EnergyFinance and Policy Division Chairs: Sen. Yvonne Prettner Solon and Rep. Bill Hilty 6:30 p.m. Room 200 State Office Bldg. Agenda: Discussion of nuclear power**** http://www.mnprogressiveproject.com/diary/2860/crown-hydro-update-the-park-board-already-takes-water-from-the-river *** *** Oh - and that meeting at the State Capital? I was there. And the State Senate has indeed voted to remove the moratorium on nuclear power plants, in Minnesota. To me, the amazing thing about Chris Johnson, and the "organization" he helped found, is this: no one nor organization has wasted more of the Park Board's time and money than Chris Johnson and ParkWatch. Why the Park Board hasn't gone to court to get a restraining order on Chris Johnson and ParkWatch is beyond me; while there is a need for public access to every governmental unit, there is no reason Chris Johnson and ParkWatch demand and get the scarce resources the Park Board has, simply because "they can." Seriously - the Park Board needs to take ParkWatch to court, and have a judge decide if the Park Board has to retain one full-time employee simply to meet the rediculous demands of ParkWatch. *** *** The Minneapolis Park Board - A "bunker mentality"? (Part 1) by: TwoPuttTommy Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 12:20:29 PM CDT Today's Avista Capital Partner's Strib has a story about the Mpls Park Board; apparently, Park Board President Tom Nordyke doesn't think it's an appropriate use of Park Board property for the City's Charter Commission to hold meetings at said property when the topic to be discussed is the possible elimination the Park Board. Seems like these days, a lot of people are taking shots at the Park Board. In the course of investigating the Crown Hydro Project, one group that seems to especially get in the Park Board's face*, is a group called ParkWatch.org, who's whole schtick seems to be "the Park and Rec Board is filled with incompetents, liars, and thieves and you can't trust them or believe anything they say - EXCEPT when it comes to Crown Hydro." And I couldn't believe the amount of paperwork ParkWatch.org demands. I asked for information regarding data requests from the Park Board; I simply couldn't believe what ParkWatch.org wanted. Let's look! Here's the Data Request I asked for, in it's entirety: ***"I would like to review the "Data Requests" filed with the MPRB by groups such as ParkWatch.org, etc."*** What I promptly got back on March 11th was a SpreadSheet, with 236 lines dating back to March 1st, 2006 - and the vast majority (all but 48, by my count) coming from ParkWatch.org folk like Arlene Fried, Edna Brazaitis, and Liz Wielinski. That's 188 Data Request submissions, in 36 months - or, roughly, a little over 5 per month. However, if you figure in 10 days per month for weekends and holidays, etc - that's really more like one Data Request every four work days. One every four days, over the course of 3 years. And let's look at a couple of what they've asked for, such as a Data Request by Liz Wielinski, on 11/1/2006 and renewed 7/20/07: ***"Any emails, telephone messages, or correspondence between DeLaSalle Brother Michael Collins, Barbara Johnson or anyone representing DeLaSalle or the Archdioceses of Mpls & St. Paul and anyone employed by (including counsel) the MPRB or it's commissioners prior to 10/25/06 going as far back as January 1, 2004. Here's one Ms. Wielinski filed on March 6th, 2007: Northeast Ice Arena - All hours scheduled / amounts paid per hour / all entities scheduled / during the 2006-2007 hockey season (Sept. 1, 2006 - April 30, 2007). I would prefer this information in the electronic format it is most likely in as you take reservations by internet. I would also like all data on expenses incurred since the arena became MPRB property including legal expenses for the transfer, utilities, repairs, staff time dedicated to this arena and the cost of any signage & advertising (fees to illegible word)"*** Here's one Ms. Wielinski filed on 8/26/2008: ***"I would like any written or electronic data regarding any possible offers of purchase or land trades, sales, or shared use of the property known as Bluff Street Park in the Cedar Riverside area. This is NOT limited to actual purchase agreements but any casual reference as well as active inquiry. This is to cover a period from January of 2003 forward."*** Here's one, by Edna Brazaitis, on 10/5/2007 and renewed 3/26/08: ***"All data, including but not limited to: correspondence, drafts, e-mails, spreadsheets, calendars, forms, presentations, phone messages, relating in any way to state financing/bond requirements relating to the DeLaSalle project, including all inner office communications within the MPRB, communications with and between the MPRB Commissioners, and all communications of any kind with, by or between staff of the Commissioner of Finance, the Department of Administration, the Met Council, the City of Minneapolis, DeLaSalle High School, and their attorneys, including the Attorney General."*** "calendars"? e-mails? phone messages? "any casual reference" - going back FIVE YEARS??!? Are you (cheney)in' kidding me??!? Gee - no wonder the Park Board had to hire someone to answer this "watchdog" group's fishing expeditions "information requests". Now, here's what really gets me: These ParkWatch.org folk love to ask questions of others, and appear to get highly indignant when Park Board people don't jump at the snap of their fingers, but: They won't answer questions posed by this friendly, progressive blogger - even though one ParkWatch.org member is running for a Park Board Seat - Liz Wielinski. From Ms. Wielinki's site: I***"ncrease citizen review and participation. I am not only eager to listen, I want a process in place so that residents are confident they will be heard. *** If you have questions, feel free to phone or send an e-mail. (LizForParks.com)"*** Please note - NOWHERE does she say she'll answer questions. And if my experience is indicative, she won't. Clearly, there are people that think the Park Board has problems; clearly, ParkWatch.org is one of them. While they have every right to ask for every scrap of paper someone made a note on, it's highly ironic that a group that allegedly wants the Park Board to function more effectively is getting in the way of them doing just that. Keep that in mind, if you see the name of Liz Wielinski on a ballot. *** Oh, and that asterisk, above? You know, from this? "...one group that seems to especially get in the Park Board's face*..." Apparently, the Park Board Commissioners recently had a "retreat." And again, while ParkWatch.org certainly has a right, under law, to attend, that doesn't give them license to be disruptive and/or behave like jerks. http://www.mnprogressiveproject.com/diary/2872/the-minneapolis-park-board-a-bunker-mentality-part-1 *** *** The Minneapolis Park Board Commissioners needs to seriously consider who it's friends are; who is going to give it advice and recommendations to ensure it's continued existence and the continued excellence of Minneapolis' Parks. The Minneapolis Park Board would be wise to consider the implications of the editorial in today's St. Cloud Times newspaper: http://www.sctimes.com/article/20090407/OPINION/104070014/-1/RSSOPINION I would submit that Chris Johnson, and ParkWatch, are the last people that would consider the opinions across Greater Minnesota - and the opinions expressed in today's St. Cloud Times editorial. With legislators across the state paying attention to - and now, competing for - funding for state, regional, AND metro parks, the LAST people the Park Board should be listening to is the likes of Chris Johnson and ParkWatch. Chris Johnson and ParkWatch are NOT the Park Board's friends; Chris Johnson and ParkWatch would lead the Park Board down the path of decreased Park Board revenues locally and by the state. The time is coming when Park Board Commissioners are going to have to have to make a decision regarding Crown Hydro that will have serious political repercussions from legislators across the state. These Commissioners are going to have to weigh short-term political gains for bowing to the demands of those worried about earthquakes and the like, versus the long term consequences of today's political realities from legislators across Greater Minnesota. The political realities are that the state funding pie is going to have many more politically connected legislators clamoring for their fair share; and they aren't going to look favorably on a Minneapolis Park Board that is ignoring part of the solution to today's energy crisis that has the additional benefit of providing a $300,000 annual funding to the Minneapolis Park Board. As much as the Chris Johnsons and ParkWatch's of Minneapolis wish that weren't true, that IS the political reality - today. And that's the political reality Park Board Commissioners are going to have to deal with.
A poster wrote: “Prove that statement. Every time I've been down there, and every statement I've read in print during presentations and hearings at the Park Board are in direct opposition to that statement. Unless something dramatically changed recently, the water in that tail race is a trickle compared to the amount need to run Crown Hydro. Just skip trying to deceive based upon the current high water flow in the river, just as there is every spring. Address the reality that most of the year, the flow is much lower.” My response: That’s just a great statement and is really at the heart of the matter. You are correct that some of the year there is not enough water to run the project and at times like now there is more than enough. When the water is low like it is during the summer months, Crown shuts down. Chances are that like most of us you were visiting the park when the weather was nice in the summer and hence there was just a “trickle” in the tail race. There was clearly not enough water to run even the “low flow” turbines for Crown and you became alarmed because you didn’t understand how the project worked. You’re not alone. That also explains why turbines that are rated for a certain capacity run at about 60% of that capacity even across the river at the Xcel site. It also explains why even if Xcel were to upgrade (they have no plans to do so now) they would still have to take into consideration the water currently being diverted by the MPRB. These plants don’t run when the flow is lower because it’s both impractical and in violation of the rules set down by FERC and others. Nonetheless, this should provide enough energy to power 2000 homes. Once again, it’s why diversity is needed in our renewable energy goals. Wind only works when the wind is blowing. You wouldn’t oppose wind turbines because one day you were walking and it was calm. You wouldn’t oppose solar because one dark night you were out thinking solar can’t work. But if you walked by the river today you might think that Hydro is a good idea. To put it simply, when there is enough water the plant runs and when there isn’t, the headrace closes (by electronic metering based on the height of the pool above the falls as is determined by the MPRB, FERC and the COE and others). Currently the water going into headrace is controlled by some boards manually placed to block flow. “I don't care to waste my time wading back through dozens and dozens of old FERC documents to disprove it, but I don't recall FERC ever being concerned with the amount of flow over the Falls. Those concerns, even when present in documents filed with FERC, have always been made by stakeholders, such as the Park Board (on behalf of citizens) and the Corps of Engineers (on behalf of being able to operate their locks). Since Mr. Beckfeld made the assertion that FERC was concerned, it's his responsibility to provide the proof. A link to a viewable document on the FERC web site will be adequate.” I’m not sure what statements you have read but they are clearly incorrect if they contradict what I just tried to explain. I can’t account for what you can recall but I agree it’s confusing as there has been a lot of misinformation going around. A copy of the FERC requirements is listed on the Crown website http://www.crownhydro.net/background.html. It’s a pdf file but the information is there and it even has a graph showing when the projects runs and when it shuts down. Some of the areas you may want to look are: Page 2- CH must provide operating scheme for low flows and very low flows in the Mississippi River Page 10- CH must cooperate with other water users in any plan to evaluate flows over the St. Anthony Falls Page 10 - CH must implement the proposed operation plan to minimize instances of no water flowing over St. Anthony Falls But once again your statement really gets to the heart of the matter and I thank you for it. On one hand a lot of people put in massive amounts of hours documenting down to the smallest detail concerns like the ones you have expressed and even many that have not yet occurred to some ( how this project affects Bald eagles and zebra mussels for example). And on the other hand some of the most vehement opposition appears not to have the correct facts that are willingly provided by many agencies. The COE obviously is very concerned with both the structural integrity of the falls and the water flow to operate the lock. You left out some other stakeholders like the U of M who also had a great deal of input, the city of Mpls, the DNR, the PCA, Fish and wildlife service, the Dept of interior, the MN historical society and many, many others. It’s great to be able to clear up some of these misunderstandings and get to some factual arguments.
So this seems to be mostly about Minneapolis Park Watch for Tommy
Johnson; one might further surmise that since the only way Crown Hydro
has a prayer of getting the MPRB land they covet, is to elect a CH-
friendly MPRB in November, so Johnson is laying the campaign
groundwork for candidates running for MPRB seats to run against any
other candidates connected in any way with Park Watch. This accounts
for the never ending flogging of a dead hydropower project. All he and
CH need is some CH-friendly candidates for MPRB and perhaps the city
council, should Paul Ostrow and Co. succeed in getting MPRB dissolved.
Raise the issue up like the Frankenstein Monster into the thunder and
lightening of our local elections, such as it is, wait for the power
surge from the lightening strikes, and our would-be Dr. Frankenstein
will be exclaiming those familiar lines from the old James Whale film,
"It's alive, it's alive." Or we could nip things in the bud, now.
Such goals could account for the youtube.com video of MaryAnn Campo
cut off in mid-sentence to allow the video poster, whomever
"liberalinthelandofconservative" or "political muse" is (unlike us,
they can be anonymous), to insert words in her mouth about the nature
of CH money to MPRB and for Tommy Johnson to attribute the same to
her. I suppose if either blogger would inform us of the the actual
meeting at which she spoke, we could find out what she actually said.
This may be standard operating procedure in the community of bloggers,
but it leaves forum members following rules who must try to attribute
what folks actually say and generally cleave to the truth at a bit of
a disadvantage. I hope Tommy Johnson, et al., will eventually be left
to do this sort of thing on their own without drawing in the rest of
the forum on these never ending CH threads and interjection of CH into
any MPRB related threads mentioning shortfalls in funding.
And while we're talking MPRB funding, here is the only term of 27 on
the term sheet pdf posted to the CH site that Thomas Beckfeld keeps
linking in his posts specifically dealing with it (the rest of them
are about CH wiggle room, I think):
The following file was added to this topic:
Tommy Johnson wrote:
> That's 188 Data Request submissions, in 36 months - or, roughly, a little
over 5 per month. However, if you figure in 10 days per month for weekends and
holidays, etc - that's really more like one Data Request every four work days.
>
> They won't answer questions posed by this friendly, progressive blogger -
even though one ParkWatch.org member is running for a Park Board Seat - Liz
Wielinski.
>
Monday night, 1st District Park Board candidates appeared at a forum
hosted by the Audubon Park neighborhood group. Both Liz Wielenski and
Mike Rainville spoke in support of increasing hydropower at the existing
St. Anthony Falls Hydro Plant and said they opposed the Crown Hydro
proposal.
Mr. Johnson's rant against Park Watch, convoluted and out of context, is
not accurate. In advance, my apologies to the list for this discussion
- I recognize the pettiness. But a few things need to be said.
Park Watch did get back to Mr. Johnson via three e-mails and an offer to
provide additional information at his request. I know because I sent
two of those emails along with copies of 3-4 documents about Crown
Hydro. As I've said before to the list, I am trying to fill in at Park
Watch for Liz W because running for Park Board eats up a lot of her
time. If you have a question for Park Watch or if you are looking for
information, please contact me. I will get back to you.
In his report on data practices requests, Mr. Johnson included a woman
who is not a member of Park Watch. She is, however, an active member of
4-5 groups involved in river and park issues - I don't know for which of
these organizations she was requesting data. It's been an honor to work
with her and I thank her for tireless effort, as an individual and
organizational volunteer, on behalf of Minneapolis parks. She is not a
member of this list.
Mr. Johnson recently created a brouhaha over an omission error on a
posting at the Park Watch website (even though I had earlier posted the
correct attribution and link to this list). Most of the work on the
Park Watch website is done by a senior citizen volunteer. She doesn't
have a home computer so she works from the public library. Of course,
she was hurt and angry at the fuss made over the error - since
corrected. I think she does a great job updating the Park Watch website
and I thank her. She is also not a member of this list.
Over the years, Park Watch has worked with many neighborhood
organizations and ad hoc groups on park issues. We often have submitted
data practices requests on behalf of these groups for we know how to do
so and because our volunteers are at Park Board HQ 2-4 times a month so
its easy to pick up the data. We will continue to do so. While we
applaud the Park Board staff for increasing communication in the past
year via the website and digital documents, greater transparency at the
Park Board remains a need.
I can't comment specifically on Mr. Johnson's list of data practices
requests for I don't have a copy. My best guess is that the data
practices requests were made for at least a dozen groups in addition to
Park Watch. Getting information about Park Board issues and sharing
this with concerned citizens is what Park Watch does.
Back to sharing information: someone asked for a cite regarding the
alternative of increasing hydropower at the existing Hennepin Island
plant. One source is "Opinion on The Crown Hydroelectric Project For
the National Trust for Historic Preservation" by John S. Gulliver, P.E.,
Ph. D. Engineering Consultant. Prof Gulliver is a member of the U of M
faculty. For the curious, a copy of the opinion is attached.
FYI,
Shawne FitzGerald
Powderhorn
The following file was added to this topic:
A poster wrote;
“I wish Mr. Beckfeld would try to explain just how MPRB gets any money
at all in this way”
Responce:
I’m not sure what you are confused about. It seems pretty straight forward.
(a) Start-up payment. At the commencement of construction, Crown
> Hydro will pay to the
> Park Board either a one-time payment of $1,000,000 or an annual
> payment of $75,000 per year
> for the duration of the lease. The Park Board can elect either
> option.
A million dollars up front means that the MPRB gets either One million dollars
up front or seventy-five thousand dollars a year for the duration of the lease
which gets adjusted (usually upwards).This happens whether or not the plant
produces a single watt of electricity. So I’m not sure how one can say: “It
all seems a bit fuzzy to me with no guarantee anything would ever come to MPRB”
As for the production tax credits. Once again I’m not sure why you don’t
believe what you are reading in the lease terms.
I guessing you may be confused by the word “Illustration:” which is an attempt
to show how the payments may work base on a production value. CH is likely to
produce more or less than this production (kwh) number depending on the amount
of flow which changes from year to year.
So there is guaranteed money up front of 1 million dollars.
Then there is production money base on output. It’s federal money so it’s
backed by the United States government. It comes from the program which
encourages renewable diversity for producing energy.
So to state that there is “no guarantee anything would ever come to MPRB” is
completely false and without any merit.
You may be able to say that there is no guarantee of $300,000 a year going to
the MPRB and in that you would be correct. It may be more or less depending on
whether or not the MPRB takes the Million up front and of course the amount of
energy the plant produces.
Just a question or two...
<email obscured> wrote:
> A million dollars up front means that the MPRB gets either One million
dollars up front or seventy-five thousand dollars a year for the duration of
the lease
Who covers the lease payments if CH goes bankrupt? Would that be
covered by some sort of bond? Or would MPRB merely be one creditor
among many in line for whatever was left?
> Then there is production money base on output. It’s federal money so it’s
backed by the United States government. It comes from the program which
encourages renewable diversity for
producing energy.
I realize you're not "guaranteeing" this one, but since government
programs are notorious for starting and stopping at the whim of
politicians, how many years is this government program scheduled to
run? For a definite period, or just until Congress wants the money
for something else?
(Q) “Who covers the lease payments if CH goes bankrupt? Would that be
covered by some sort of bond? Or would MPRB merely be one creditor
among many in line for whatever was left?”
(tb) If they take the Million up front, there is no lease payment. They collect
the entire lease payment up front. If they invest the million in a bond the
equivalent return is 7.5%. It’s like the option you have if you win the
Powerball lottery.
(Q) “I realize you're not "guaranteeing" this one, but since government
programs are notorious for starting and stopping at the whim of
politicians, how many years is this government program scheduled to
run? For a definite period, or just until Congress wants the money
for something else?”
(tb) I have an opinion but that’s all. Obama and the congress are dedicated to
expanding these types programs and all of the renewable energy projects are
depending on this to be able to cover the upfront costs. It’s included in the
next budget and if I was the MPRB, I’d base the payments on a percentage so
that in the likely event (my opinion) that the program increases they can make
even more.
Energy has become a priority item in the budget and even the stimulus package.
Even many on the right side of the aisle support this type of stimulus.
Contacting your local Congressman or Senator to see if they expect any change
in this law, would be more enlightening than my opinion. Your guess about what
the Government will do in the next 20 years may well be better than mine.
There isn’t a renewable energy program in the country that isn’t or shouldn’t
be asking the same questions.
It’s also important to remember that this is the proposed lease and has with
all leases of this type can be adjusted. If the MPRB see something in the lease
they don’t like they can and should negotiate terms.
It’s not the final wording.
A supposition that the term sheet describes any income at all for MPRB
must assume there is a legal basis to derive this sort of income from
parkland, i.e., if the land acquired for a park use by the state
becomes a power plant, why should MPRB get a dime? Of course Crown
Hydro could approach the Legislature again to change the law to allow
for such a contingency just as they tried to have them make it
possible to condemn parkland, but I don't see that happening either.
The lottery analogy is pretty funny. Giving a government agency a
million dollars and telling them to more than triple it (what they'd
get with an annual lease over the term), is laughable.
I'm glad Mr. Beckfeld didn't try to explain the production tax
credits, and I'm sure that I can, but it seems reasonable to point out
that the length of the lease is the fifty years of any FERC license CH
might be issued if they could swing the latest real estate scheme
necessary for their project, automatically renewable when the FERC
license is renewed for the next fifty years. Remember that the credits
only last for ten years, and after that, MPRB gets only the lease
payment or zip, should they elect to take the million.
MPRB took another road, though. They decided to keep Mill Ruins Park
in one piece and send CH packing, so the only way CH can have a plant
in this pool is to make the Crown Roller Mill basement location work.
The basement plant is the only way unless they turn MPRB around, that
is. The only way to reverse MPRB now is to convince or fool voters to
elect an MPRB who will do CH's bidding. So belief in what a candidate
says in a political campaign when they are politically aligned with
the minority faction of MPRB who thought this was a good deal is
necessary for CH to go forward now. Who do you believe?
believe |biˈlēv|
verb [ trans. ]
1 accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of : the
superintendent believed Lancaster's story | [with clause ] Christians
believe that Jesus rose from the dead.
• accept the statement of (someone) as true : he didn't believe her
or didn't want to know.
• [ intrans. ] have faith, esp. religious faith : there are those on
the fringes of the Church who do not really believe.
• ( believe something of someone) feel sure that (someone) is capable
of a particular action : I wouldn't have believed it of Lois—what an
extraordinary woman!
2 [with clause ] hold (something) as an opinion; think or suppose : I
believe we've already met | things were not as bad as the experts
believed | humu-humu are, I believe, shrimp fritters | ( believe
someone/something to be) four men were believed to be trapped.
(Q) A supposition that the term sheet describes any income at all for MPRB
must assume there is a legal basis to derive this sort of income from
parkland, i.e., if the land acquired for a park use by the state
becomes a power plant, why should MPRB get a dime?
(tb) Are you kidding? How about because they have a binding contract? Are you
seriously suggesting that there can be no leases on any government owned land
because the government would have no recourse to collect lease payments?
Clearly you have a unique legal point of view on this and I wonder why all the
energy, lumber, mining, hospitality and countless other companies who have
lease’s on some type of Government land haven’t pursued your logic. Maybe we
should not post on this publicly in case one of their lawyers reads this and
ask” why didn’t I think of that!”
There have been some pretty big leaps of logic on this project, ie earthquakes,
drying up the falls, making Xcel expand and update, Hydro diversion not being
green, but this one, wow! My hats off to you!
I guess it is not so much that I can't explain the production tax
credits, but that I'm not certain I can explain them; like a new
company going into the hydroelectric power generation business, such
dense law may be too much open to interpretation and gets one into
trouble.
I'm not a lawyer, but this situation seems pretty clear-cut to me, and
answering a rhetorical question posed in one post in your own is
symptomatic of the perception problems that Crown Hydro and their
project proponents continually display. As long as Mr. Beckfeld
chooses to ignore that the state, meaning every government entity with
controlling interests that would abrogate this contract, has ultimate
control of what happens to this land, I guess we'll be treated to
these exchanges and various answers to questionable stuff of which no
one cares about the answers but CH and their proponents. CH seems to
have problems with all sorts of law, not the least of which is that of
dealing with property rights and defining public purpose. Things can
get very messy when you give in to such single minded folks. The fact
remains that the State of Minnesota acquired this land and gave it to
the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board for a park. It is Mill Ruins
Park now, and not a location for a hydropower plant.
Mr. Beckfeld and many more of us can find the rule of law frustrating
or annoying, but it is how things are decided in democratic countries
like ours with rule of law instead of mice or men and women; we can't
go all Frank Sinatra on everyone doing it our way. Parties to a
contract must recognize every contingency possible and account for it
to the satisfaction of both parties; I doubt this can ever happen
between CH and MPRB. Mr. Beckfeld and Tommy Johnson continually point
to the public purpose of the CH plant, but the better alternative for
meeting the particular purpose they identify lies across the river and
on the West Bank lies in protecting and enhancing Mill Ruins Park, not
breaking it up with the CH project. If the purpose is so public, then
why couldn't they condemn that Crown Roller Mill building? There are
lots of reasons they could not condemn or even want to attempt the
project at the CRM, not the least of which is that they probably could
not afford to do so for one reason or another. A "taking" is still
illegal, even when you are trying to take from the government and
especially so when you are not the government, I think. If the
government won't give you something you want, you are pretty much out
of luck unless you can convince them otherwise or get them to cut you
a deal and then everyone breaks into that Madison laws/men problem.
Heck, if things go CH's way, any number of things can happen. CH can
build their plant at great expense and fail financially, in which case
a vulture across the river would likely swoop in and feed upon the
carrion; I guess you might give it a common name: Turn-key Vulture. CH
could fail to finish their plant for some reason and leave MPRB
holding the bag, perhaps feeding the dead project to same vulture. The
most unlikely scenario to me is that things come off as CH and their
project proponents have envisioned them and even if that happened,
we'd still have lost a part and disrupted the rest of a popular park
with little or no remuneration for the dirty deed, certainly no where
near enough for any of this bother. Do we really need to feed the
vulture any more than we all already do? (Please don't answer this
question, Mr. Beckfeld).
There is another solution, I suppose; since the Turn-key Vulture on
Hennepin Island is not fully realizing the potential power generation
from the same water over the falls CH would use, we condemn their land
and upgrade their plant for a new municipal power utility. Oh wait,
that can't be legal, can it? We'll have to change the laws first. No,
wait. We probably can't afford it. The Turn-key Vultures have a way to
get us to do such things though, with carrots and sticks used on
various parties, all the while waiting to swoop in from their
perches ... oh well, an analogy and mixed metaphors can only be pushed
so far; I'm getting disoriented.
Since this is the time of the year to recognize various examples of
death and resurrection of life and other stuff, I thought I would try
to end this thread with some youtube.com videos as T. Johnson began it
with the doctored up MaryAnn Campo video. I probably should have
included them in my post mentioning this famous film based on the more
famous book by Mary Shelly. My sympathies have always been with
Frankenstein's monster, as ridiculous as the notion of science is in
the story and film, but not in this case. The villagers of Minneapolis
can avoid all the drama and keep this rampaging CH media monster from
creating a plant we don't need instead of dealing with the fallout,
leaving it as bad fiction rather than lousy public policy. Enjoy or not.
I guess I really am tired of these CH threads; I hope I'm out, but I
can't say so. I doubt if people are reading them or at least my posts,
it is all just water into one diversion or another at this point. CH
is one diversion none of us need to have built.
I joined this list because I was appalled at the amount of discredited
information being put out about this project. I was amazed that that labels
like “corrupt, liars, and worse were applied to those who disagreed with some
on this list. Today we compared to monsters and called vultures.
One of the most outspoken critics on this list last week proclaimed proudly
that he had not read the FERC license, But that didn’t stop him from posting
often on what he thought it said, another claimed that earthquakes were almost
a certainty and when it was pointed out that the fault she was referring to was
700 miles away that also didn’t stop her from continuing to make the claim, and
now we have a bizarre legal opinion that if it was true, would remove virtually
every domestic source of oil, gas, coal and timber and countless other
resources’ from our economy. Walter Mondale claimed that this project would
reduce the flow over the falls by 90% and nobody challenged him on how that
could be possible using only one 8’ diameter causeway on a thousand foot falls.
One of the biggest myths is that somehow the park will change and you will lose
use of the park. Unless you are a mole and visit the area under the parking lot
of the lock and dam this rumor is equally false. Don’t take my word on it, see
for yourself on CH website or if you don’t trust that ask the MPRB to examine
the drawings they have.
I don’t think it’s wrong to bring these important questions to the table, But
it’s wrong to use them as an excuse after they have been addressed and shown to
be false. We have people and apparently even those seeking MPRB office,
supporting mythological developments across the river based once again on
nothing more than rumor. No matter how often these claims are debunked, exposed
or shown to be wrong they continue to be espoused and now may become public
policy if the q&a from the 2 park board candidates is any indication. It’s good
politics but bad public policy.
The good news for those who advocate against taking any real and meaningful
action to reduce the CO2 is that they have some allies up here where I live. My
congressperson hosted a global climate change town hall meeting last week in
St. Cloud and you will be happy to know that although you may disagree with her
reasons, you both agree on the actions needed to address the problem.
Those of you who continue to cling onto the myth of expanding the output across
the river should at the very least get an opinion from Xcel. They have of
course offered that opinion and it contradicts what you claim. I know that
won’t stop some from continuing to make the claim.
Facts are not messy things that we should sweep under the carpet because they
don’t fit in to our preconceived notions. Facts are what we want our elected
officials to base public policy on.
Just a slight correction to a small bit of Mr. Beckfeld's latest. My
analogy of Frankenstein's monster was to the project itself and if one
were to extrapolate it to anyone in any role of this Crown Hydro
odyssey, it would be of the mad scientist trying to create life to
project proponents, not of a monster to any person. The vulture
analogy, of course, was applied to Xcel Energy; I thought the Turn-key
Vulture concept was pretty spiffy, and I'm sorry Mr. Beckfeld did not.
I could write more, but I'm busy with Easter dinner preparations; and
besides, there is nothing new here but the latest rant from a project
proponent. The oblique sorts of arguments made in the last post don't
really merit much attention. I'm done for the day, maybe longer.
Need help? Please contact technical support and we will follow-up in 24-48 hours.
Hosted by E-Democracy.Org. Powered by OnlineGroups.Net using the open source web-based mailing list manager GroupServer.