Note: our connectivity issue has been resolved. This post originally appeared on Extra! Bluestem Prairie while our host was working to solve the problem. Much thanks to Typepad.
He’s back at it again. In a legislative email to constituents that was also published as Reform of prevailing wage law will benefit state, a letter in Glencoe’s McLeod County Chronicle. Gruenhagen argues that workers on small public infrastructure projects typical of greater Minnesota should be paid less so that the money would go farther:
One of my chief authored bills, HF508, updates prevailing wage provisions and raises the cost threshold for state government-funded projects that require prevailing wage. Currently, prevailing wage laws only apply to state subsidized projects that exceed a certain dollar amount.
Since infrastructure projects in Greater Minnesota tend to cost less than those in the Metro, raising this cost threshold will allow private contractors to bid on smaller projects without being forced to use union wage scales. The result will be that state tax dollars will go further in funding smaller infrastructure projects, which are more common in Greater Minnesota. . . .
As our gentle readers might suspect, construction workers aren’t on board with this concept anymore than women hoping to control their own reproductive rights.
State Rep. Glenn Gruenhagen’s prevailing wage ideas will cut pay and cost jobs for blue collar workers.
I am a retired construction worker who spent his career building infrastructure in this state. A recent letter in this paper caught my attention. He attacked prevailing wage laws in Minnesota. For those who don’t know, prevailing wage is nothing more than local area standard wages for construction workers.
Gruenhagen called prevailing wage the “union wage.” That’s false. The local wage rate is established by looking at local wages paid on real jobs in our area, both union and nonunion workers benefit. He also fantasizes that we can save millions of dollars by getting rid of prevailing wages and that this will create more jobs. The real reason Gruenhagen wants to mess with prevailing wage is simple, and it has nothing to do with taxpayers. He is working for cheap labor contractors that are using him to get rid of the laws that prevent them from paying workers low wages on public projects. The fact is that Gruenhagen and the business owners he fights for think construction workers in our region make too much money. I’m offended by that.
These people are highly trained workers; they put their lives in danger and spend countless days on the road away from their families building this state. They earn their money, Glenn, every penny. . . .
Read the rest online at the paper.
However, Bluestem wonders whether Gruenhagen might not have to wait long for the cost of labor to come down, and in the spirit of his bill we offer a modest proposal.
That leaves Minnesota with a dilemma, as Republicans put the brakes on sentencing and probation reform, creating more prisoners than there are beds. Let’s put these unfortunate souls into chain gangs that would repair our state’s road and bridges for nothing more than the price of a few guards, orange jumpsuits (blaze pink for the lady offenders), barracks and eggs. Pay them nothing while they learn valuable skills and work habits and soon the price of infrastructure will plummet.
Image: Handsome convicts could reduce the price of Minnesota’s infrastructure beyond Representative Gruenhagen’s wildest dreams and there would probably be a place for prison ministry as well.
If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 33166 770th Ave, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. Those wishing to make a small ongoing monthly contribution should click on the paypal subscription button.
Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email sally.jo.sorensen@gmail.com as recipient.
Yesterday, via a press release from the Minnesota Department of Economic Department, the Governor's Task Force on Broadband released its annual report, recommending biennial spending of $100 million in ongoing funding for the Border-to-Border Broadband Grand Development Program and $10 million in operating funds for the Office of Broadband Development.
The office is located within MN DEED.
In a statement issued today, Lt. Gov. Tina Smith said:
“Broadband remains a critical tool for building a fair economy that works for all Minnesotans. This report reaffirms that significant, sustained investment is necessary to provide all Minnesotans the affordable, reliable, high-speed internet they require to run businesses, get educations, and access modern medical care. If we don’t make this investment, Minnesota will be divided between those who can access the promise of the 21st century and those who cannot. That is not right."
“Our Administration will propose another robust investment in broadband infrastructure next session. I hope legislators, many of whom ran on a promise to strengthen rural communities, will fulfill this commitment.”
Bluestem's editor's own experience concurs. We moved to a new home in rural Big Stone County where fiber broadband was installed by a local telephone co-op on September 1. Our housemate is a photographer who documents the prairie pothole region's beauty--and arrival of fast upload and download times has been a boon to his ability to market his photos and studio open houses.
It's just an imperative for farmers and rural auto shops, as these businesses require the ability to receive and send data swiftly.
The recommendations outlined in the report are aimed at ensuring every Minnesotan has access to broadband and the ability to use it. The recommendations include $100 million in ongoing funding for the Border-to-Border Broadband Grand Development Program and $10 million in operating funds for the Office of Broadband Development, located within the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED).
“Last year, we made strides with the largest investment in the Border-to-Border Broadband Development Grant Program to date, but we know there’s more work to be done to achieve our goal of broadband access for every Minnesotan,” said Margaret Anderson Kelliher, chair of the Governor’s Task Force on Broadband. “Broadband plays a vital role in connecting people to health care, education and the global economy. The recommendations in our report will continue to move us closer to the border-to-border broadband access we need to succeed now and into the future.”
“Our goal is to make high-speed broadband accessible to every home, school, business and community in the state, particularly in Greater Minnesota,” said DEED Commissioner Shawntera Hardy. “This is an important tool that will not only improve the quality of life of all Minnesotans, but will be an investment in the future economic development of our state.”
The Border-to-Border Broadband Development Grant Program, created by the Legislature in 2014 and initially funded at $20 million, provides funding to build the state’s broadband infrastructure and promote broadband access in unserved and underserved areas of the state. The grants provide up to a dollar-for-dollar match on funds, not to exceed $5 million for any one project, and are distributed to qualified entities. . . .
The Task Force recommendation to allocate $10 million in operating funds to the Office of Broadband Development recognizes that specific and targeted policies and programs can effectively aid the adoption of broadband and assist in deployment.
Additional policy recommendations include:
1. Take action to promote and communicate “dig once” policies
2. Establish a legislative cybersecurity commission for the purpose of information sharing, monitoring workforce issues, and supporting and strengthening infrastructure
3. Continue to monitor advancing telecommunications technologies
4. Amend building codes to require that multi-tenant housing units funded with public dollars deploy cabling that supports easier management of broadband connectivity
5. Build computer donation partnerships between state agencies and community-based organizations that get computers into the hands of those who need them
6. Modify the state Telecommunications Assistance Program to better align with the national Lifeline program to subsidize the cost of broadband service for low income households
7. Support continued funding of Regional Library Telecommunications Aid (RLTA)
8. Fully fund Telecommunications Access Equity Aid
Photo: The view from our kitchen window. All this and fiber broadband too. Photo by Sally Jo Sorensen.
If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 33166 770th Ave, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.
Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email sally.jo.sorensen at gmail.com as recipient.
According to her LinkedIn profile, Wendy Meadley's role as Chief Strategy Officer for the North American High Speed Rail Group ended in October 2016 (see screengrab above). She appears from news reports to remain as a spokester for the private rail scheme.
Those looking for an answer to whether private investors will build a high-speed rail line from Rochester to the Twin Cities will just have to keep on waiting.
Wendy Meadley, who has been overseeing the rail project work, said Tuesday that no final decision has been made on whether to move ahead with the project, but she said there are several investors who remain interested in supporting it.
between the Twin Cities and Rochester, and financed by Chinese and other private investors, is to some an exquisite dream.
To others, it’s folly.
The proposed $4.2 billion train would travel between the two cities at 220 miles an hour in 30 to 45 minutes, a trip that takes twice as long by car. Once known as Zip Rail, the project was abandoned earlier this year by the Minnesota Department of Transportation and Olmsted County after nearly 25 years of study, due to a dearth of funds.
But a privately held Bloomington firm called the North American High Speed Rail Group (NAHSR) is keeping the idea of a high-speed rail line alive. Recently the group said that it was reorganizing and is now known as the Minnesota Corridor Project. None of NAHSR’s officers has experience developing such a project.
There's no organization or business called "Minnesota Corridor Project" registered with the Minnesota Secretary of State's office, according to a search of the SOS's online records. Nor can we find mention online of this entity outside of the Star Tribune article, in which Meadley is described in this language:
The ultimate goal would be a high-speed connection to Chicago, said Wendy Meadley, spokeswoman for the Minnesota Corridor Project. “The true Holy Grail is Chicago.” . . .
Is this project now just the Ghost of Pipe Dreams Past?
Screengrab: Wendy Meadley's LinkedIn profile.
If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 33166 770th Ave, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.
Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email sally.jo.sorensen at gmail.com as recipient.
Gruenhagen said he will help repair Minnesota’s aging road and bridges by addressing one factor that makes the work expensive.
“We need to reform Minnesota’s prevailing wage law,” he said. “It artificially inflates the cost.”
Prevailing wage sets the hourly wage employers must pay workers on construction projects that receive state money. Gruenhagen said the mandated pay hurts state projects, and local projects that receive state money.
“Minnesota is among the four states with the highest prevailing wage law,” he said.
To see the prevailing wages for state-funded projects in Gruenhagen's district, check out Region 7 (includes Sibley County) here and Region 8 (includes McLeod County) here.
After he takes out "artificial" prevailing wages, maybe he'll go after worker safety measures and restrictions on child labor, both of which drive up the costs employers face. Perhaps prison chain gangs doing road work, rather than reopening the closed private prison in Appleton, could replace honest construction workers while we're at it. For a bit of porridge and bread crusts--roads would be repaired, prison overcrowding solved.
Photo: Glenn Gruenhagen arguing for his bill to make sure people use the bathroom assigned to their biological gender at birth. Maybe Minnesota construction workers could get second jobs as bathroom monitors if both of Gruenhagen's "reforms" succeed. Photo by Tom Olmscheid via MinnPost.
If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 33166 770th Ave, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.
Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email sally.jo.sorensen at gmail.com as recipient.
Joseph Wang, CEO of the North American High Speed Group, tells Heather Carlson at the Rochester Post Bulletin that he was "shocked" that America had no high speed rail system when he moved to the United State in 1991.
Bluestem thinks the bigger shocker here is Wang's claim that the Chinese high-speed rail system was built and operational when he lived in China until 1991.
In an interview, Wang said he understands that many Americans are skeptical of high-speed rail. But he said he has seen firsthand the benefit of such projects. Wang was born in Taizhou, China. He worked for China National Technical Import and Export Corp., overseeing construction of massive infrastructure projects financed with foreign dollars. He also did a lot of traveling in China, Japan and Taiwan and saw the impact high-speed rail projects had a region.
"I saw how high-speed rail changed the human beings' lives. How high-speed rail improved the economy and created jobs," he said.
Wang moved to the U.S. in 1991 and became a U.S. citizen. He said he was shocked when he moved to America that there was no high-speed rail. [emphasis added]
That's a charming tale. But Bluestem struggles to understand how Wang could have been shocked at the absence of high-speed rail in the United States when at the time, high-speed rail in the People's Republic of China was only a glimmer in party officials' eyes.
Policy planners debated the necessity and economic viability of high-speed rail service. Supporters argued that high-speed rail would boost future economic growth. Opponents noted that high-speed rail in other countries were expensive and mostly unprofitable[citation needed]. Overcrowding on existing rail lines, they said, could be solved by expanding capacity through higher speed and frequency of service. In 1995, Premier Li Peng announced that preparatory work on the Beijing Shanghai HSR would begin in the 9th Five Year Plan (1996–2000), but construction was not scheduled until the first decade of the 21st century.
According to the entry, high-speed rail was launched in China in 2007. What Wang saw there in 1991 is anyone's guess, but whatever he and Carlson were smoking during that interview, they should learn to share.
The 2007 date is mentioned in Tom Zoellner's une 14, 2016 article in Foreign Affairs, China's High-Speed Rail Diplomacy. It's an interesting read, and includes news of the American regulation ( "a federal mandate that high-speed rail train sets must be manufactured domestically") that shut down the Xpress West proect from Vegas to Southern California. (North American High Speed Rail once claimed to be negotiating to operate that line).
Taiwan's high speed rail line dates from the same year. Time reported in A Brief History of High-Speed Rail that Japan built its first bullet train for the 1964 Tokyo Olympics; by 2009, 1,500 miles of high speed rail lines had been built on the island nation. The article noted:
The sobering expense of high-speed train travel has tempered the expectations of even the strongest rail advocates. "It sounds like a lot of money to Americans, but it's really just a start," James P. RePass of the National Corridors Initiative told the Washington Post. Some critics also predict a massive price tag to operate new rail lines, pointing to Amtrak's perennial shortfalls, and a proposed link between Anaheim and Las Vegas (in the home state of Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid) sparked outrage and derision among many Republicans.
In the seven years since, little headway has been made.
There also exists the strong possibility of a political backlash to the idea of Chinese-financed high-speed rail projects. In 2005, fears of growing Chinese influence—stoked by U.S. politicians and pundits—helped doom a bid by CNOOC, a Chinese firm, to acquire the U.S. oil producer Unocal. Today, anti-Chinese sentiment is running even higher than it was then, thanks in no small part the presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, who regularly berates Washington elites for not taking a tougher line on Beijing. And critics of Chinese involvement in U.S. rail will no doubt exploit public concerns over safety. In 2011, a malfunctioning signal box caused the collision of two Chinese-built high-speed rail trains near the city of Wenzhou, killing 40 and injuring almost 200 more. The Chinese government moved to squelch criticism, even though investigations found that the rail line had been built hastily with substandard materials amid an atmosphere of official corruption.
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), an arm of the Treasury Department designed to protect the nation from financial threats to its national security, would presumably review any large-scale involvement by Beijing in a critical piece of U.S. infrastructure. But the CFIUS approval process is somewhat opaque, and the committee’s decisions can apparently be swayed by high-priced lobbyists. When asked about their review process, a U.S. Treasury spokesman responded in email that the committee “does not comment on information relating to specific CFIUS cases, including whether or not certain parties have filed notices for review.”
Details, details.
Whatever the case, Bluestem thinks it's safe to bet that Wang, North American High Speed Rail Group's strategic communicator Wend Meadley and the rest of the gang are full capable of building the high speed rail that flourished in China and Taiwan over 25 years ago.
Perhaps they'll offer Mayor Brede a piece of the Brooklyn Bridge next or market vaporware to the DMC.
Photo: Maybe Wang was thinking of "theAsia Express steam locomotive, which operated commercially from 1934 to 1943 in Manchuria could reach 130 km/h (81 mph) and was one of the fastest trains in Asia" (Amtrak'sAcela Express on the east coast can reach 150 mph). Photo credits: This photographic image was published before December 31st 1956, or photographed before 1946, under the jurisdiction of the Government of Japan. Thus this photographic image is considered to be public domain according to article 23 of old copyright law of Japan (English translation) and article 2 of supplemental provision of copyright law of Japan.
If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 33166 770th Ave, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.
Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email sally.jo.sorensen at gmail.com as recipient.
At the request of the state legislature, the Office of the Legislature conducted a review of the Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation Board (IRRRB) and the result wasn't pretty.
Far afield, the Charlotte Observer picked up Kyle Potter's report for the Associated Press with the most painful headline of all for the unemployed workers on the Range suffering through the downturn in the nation's steel industry: Report: Iron Range investments may not create many jobs.
Range blogger Aaron Brown includes some wonderful historical photos about the agency in his post about the document, Report details serious problems at IRRRB, only with this conclusion:
. . . By its very nature, the OLA report could not be overly specific about each deal, but the general tone is clear: the IRRRB must reform its process of distributing money, and improve transparency and accountability in its decisions.
From a political science standpoint, the IRRRB is one conservative wave election away from being gutted. For that matter, change could even come from within the DFL. The Iron Range is losing political clout, population and influence at a rapid pace. That’s why, in my opinion, responding in good faith to fair criticism now is vital to the future of the Iron Range. . . .
Read the news reports beyond the headlines and as always, read everything Mr. Brown writes.
Here's the Youtube of the Legislative Audit Commission - Evaluation Subcommittee hearing on the release of the Office of the Legislative Auditor Report on the Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation Board (IRRRB).
The Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation Board (IRRRB) provides loans and grants for economic development in its northeast Minnesota service area. It also owns the Giants Ridge Recreation Area and the Minnesota Discovery Center museum.
Overall, IRRRB oversight and evaluation of its loans and grants are inadequate.
IRRRB did not adequately specify objectives—such as job growth—in many loan contracts we reviewed, and it collected insufficient evidence on how well loans met their objectives. Whether IRRRB provided loans to certain applicants that may not have needed them was unclear.
IRRRB does not require most companies to report the number of jobs they create using IRRRB subsidies. For companies that do provide job data, IRRRB relies solely on their self-reported data.
The database IRRRB uses to maintain information on loans is inaccurate and outdated. It lacks needed information, such as number of jobs created, to allow the agency to evaluate loans or their impacts.
For IRRRB grants, many files we reviewed that referred to job creation contained only vague estimates of job growth and had little evidence of achieving objectives.
Some of IRRRB’s grant programs did not consistently follow agency policies on reviewing applications, monitoring projects, or issuing payments to grantees.
From 2006 to 2014, Giants Ridge operating losses increased by more than 500 percent. IRRRB has subsidized operating losses with an average $1.9 million yearly. IRRRB has not set sufficient targets to measure how well Giants Ridge meets its stated goals.
State statutes on IRRRB’s governance structure are vulnerable to a constitutional challenge.
IRRRB has not adequately overseen the use and impacts of its loans and grants.
Key Recommendations:
IRRRB should explicitly analyze to what extent loan applicants can complete projects without IRRRB funding.
IRRRB should take steps, such as specifying in loan contracts the numbers of jobs that companies are to create, to ensure its loans actually help create jobs. It should also improve how it measures job creation.
IRRRB should more consistently determine how well its grants meet their stated objectives, including job creation.
IRRRB should ensure that all of its grant programs comply with agency policies.
IRRRB should regularly analyze the collective impact of its loan and grant programs on the area it serves.
IRRRB should measure Giants Ridge’s performance against its stated goals and determine whether the resort remains consistent with the agency’s mission.
Photo: It was all downhill at the Giant's Ridge ski resort, which received loans repeatedly from the IRRRB but suffered massive losses.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie's posts and analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
The DFA plant in Zumbrota has been fined more than $100,000 by the city since 2014 over a smelly wastewater discharge. The dispute between the city and DFA eventually landed in the Minnesota Court of Appeals. Repeated wastewater violations prompted the city to increase its fee and fine schedule for the third time since 2009, which led to the legal challenge by DFA.
Bauer said Saturday that the local dairy plant, which processes about 8 million pounds of milk each week, has continued to be fined in recent months, though the new fines pale in comparison to the $90,000 fine that was issued in the summer of 2014; exact totals were not available.
"It has been better," Bauer said of the city's relationship with the dairy plant. . . .
Zumbrota is located on the North Branch of the Zumbro River. A friend who grew up in the area said kids called it the Scumbrota River, so we're hoping they manage to talk to those stinky cheese guys and figure it out.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie's original reporting and analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
After dithering for months about the possibility of a special session to help workers struggling with the consequences of a long-term crisis in the American steel industry, Minnesota House Speaker Kurt Daudt, R-Crown, has told Bill Hanna at the Mesabi Daily News that he's open to a deal.
House Republicans have proposed draft language for a special session bill that would provide a 13-week extension of unemployment benefits for laid-off mining-related workers on the Iron Range.
It would also reform the state Unemployment Trust Fund by providing some financial relief for Minnesota employers who pay into it, which House Republicans say mirrors a DFL House proposal in 2013.
That fund, which would finance an extension of benefits for Iron Range workers, currently holds about $1.6 billion. There is bipartisan agreement the fund is too flush at the expense of employers. . . .
Daudt has said his caucus believes there is no need for a special session because the Legislature convenes in about seven weeks on March 8.
However, in a telephone interview with the Mesabi Daily News Friday afternoon, Daudt said if the governor calls a special session he will bring a bill to the House floor to extend benefits for mining-related Iron Range workers.
He also said it would have his support and the backing of the House GOP caucus.
Hanna doesn't post links to the language (and it's not clear from the article that he's read it) and we haven't been able to find a draft posted on the Speaker's page.
However, the Speaker did mention to Hanna that the language " mirrors a DFL House proposal in 2013." Bluestem went looking for that, and turned up HF0577 a bill which had former state representative Joe Radinovich as chief author. It gathered 13 co-authors--including four Republicans (Uglem, Abeler, Runbeck, Quam). The state senate companion bill, SF619, authored by Edina DFLer Meliza Franzen, gathered the maximum number of four co-authors, including Republican Eric Pratt, R-Prior Lake.
Neither bill got a committee hearing, but before Daudt starts carrying on about the DFL not doing anything about this pressing issue when it had control of the legislature, as he is wont to do, we thought we'd see if a similar bill had been introduced since the Republicans took control of the lower chamber.
Sure enough.
Freshman Dennis Smith, R-Maple Grove, authored HF1416, picking up nine co-authors; the bill was introduced on March 4, 2015. Dan Sparks, DFL-Austin, wrote the senate companion bill, SF1320, which has two Republican and two DFL co-authors.
Like the 2013 bills, both were referred to committees, where they crawled off and died. In the House, Pat Garofalo ignored it, while he connived ways to zero out broadband grants and eliminate net metering.
We wondered what was up with the inaction and so asked a source who understands the legislature better than we; the source suggested that the bills hadn't attracted the votes for passage and so languished.
In short, bipartisan sloth, if not downright dolor on the part of those interests seeking this relief, regardless of whether Thissen or Daudt gripped the Speaker's gavel.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie's original reporting and analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
The Minnesota AFL-CIO endorsed Republican Jim Abeler in the special election for state Senate District 35. It wasn't surprising, since Abeler supported overriding former Governor Tim Pawlenty's veto of a gas tax in 2008 and the district is reliably Republican.
Thus, it's not surprising to find that a newly registered political committee, Citizens For Abeler, is chaired by Chelsie Glaubitz, the dynamic 30-year-old woman who was elected president of the Minneapolis Regional Labor Federation on December 9. (It's important to note, again, that the lit piece at the top of this post isn't from the new PAC, but from the candidate--but it does illustrate the common interest).
At the time of her election, Workday Minnesota reported New Minneapolis labor federation president brings fresh perspective. The creation of an independent PAC with labor roots for a Republican in Minnesota is unusual. It's also prudent to recognize that transportation requires dedicated long-term funding, not temporary shifting around of pots of money or bonding, and organized construction workers appreciate a dependable revenue stream.
Dayton said he had a private meeting Thursday with DFL lawmakers to discuss transportation funding issues. He said he apologized to them “for having to blurt out” his assessment of the gas tax six weeks ago.
House Republicans want to use surplus money and dedicate existing sales tax revenues to transportation.
Dayton said he’ll do all he can to push back against that approach.
We'll keep an eye out on this PAC's spending when the First Report of Receipts and Expenditures (Period covered: 1/1 through 3/31/2016) are due on April 14, according the calendar for PAC disclosures on the CFB's website. It's possible that Citizens for Abeler spent money on the January 12 primary, since "The treasurer of a political committee or political funds must register within 14 days of raising or spending in excess of $750" to nominate or elect candidates, according to the CFB's website.
Image: An Abeler lit piece via his website. This piece is not from the newly-registered PAC.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie's original reporting and analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
In the latest Aitkin Age, Adam Hookenakker reports in CMCC, 2016 levy discussed by county board, that a county commissioner fact checked Dale Lueck's recital of his caucus' new talking point about federal broadband funds:
Although not on the regular agenda, Rep. Dale Lueck (R-10B) gave the Aitkin County Board of Commissioners his opinion on a couple topics affecting the county at the regular meeting of the board Dec. 8. . . .
Lueck also talked about broadband coming to the county, reporting that Aitkin County will see an expansion of the service through CenturyLink, as it will be spending significant federal funds within the county in the next few years.
Commissioner Anne Marcotte said she spoke with someone at CenturyLink and was shown a map of where the work would take place – around Hill City and Aitkin – not in outlying areas that need coverage the most. She also said the work wouldn’t be done until 2017.
If I’ve learned nothing else from the TV show Toddlers in Tiaras, I learned that sometimes you don’t want to win the first crown. Winning the first crown is better than winning nothing, but it usually puts you out of the running for Best in Show. Getting access at speeds of 10/1 is better than what the communities receiving CAF 2 funding have now. And any improvement is an improvement. BUT those speeds are slower than the Minnesota speed goals of 10/5 (The MN Broadband Task Force is looking to update those speeds.) and they seem even slower when you compare them to rural areas that have Gig access, such as Grand Rapids, Red Wing, Lac qui Parle County, New Prague, Rogers, Melrose and others.
Treacy notes that Aitkin County will be getting $3,388,534; the county commissioner drilled down even more--and found that the federal money isn't going to rural areas that are underserved. Nor will the speeds be required to match state goals.
Why is Lueck inserting himself into a county meeting to tout federal funding he had nothing to do with securing? It's a salvage operation for Minnesota House Republicans, who tried to unfund rural broadband and close the state Office of Broadband development.
They would have gotten away with it if it weren't for the public outcry--and those meddling Democrats.
(Back) story of a talking point
Last April, Minnesota House Republicans planned to zero out spending on the the Border to Border (B2B) grant program and eliminate the state Office of Broadband development, PIM's Capitol Report Mike Mullen reported in Jobs and energy panel shifting priorities.
. . . So what has happened between last year — when even the Governor’s Task Force on Broadband suggested a $100 million infusion of state money — to this year, when broadband will be lucky to leave St. Paul with $12 million to keep the initiative’s lights on?
Former GOP Rep. Dan Dorman left the House in 2009 and now is executive director of the three-year-old Greater Minnesota Partnership, a consortium of 90 members — including 10 MnSCU campuses and 10 chambers of commerce — that advocate for Greater Minnesota issues. “Basically,” he says, “what you see is that technological ignorance and politics have intertwined. I was in the House for eight years. I’ve seen this firsthand. In general, Republicans don’t like to spend money. If they can find a reason, any reason, not to to spend they’ll cling to it no matter what.” . . .
Dorman’s bet is that broadband expansion leaves the Capitol next week with “$12 to $14 million and the promise to do better next year. Then,” he laughs, “they’ll come back and promise to do better the year after that.”
Lambert noted that the free-market development of wireless--the solution touted by Republicans--was soundly criticized by one of the lobbyists who helped draft broadband legislation during the earlier session:
Chris Henjum, like Dorman an attorney/lobbyist with the St. Paul firm of Flaherty & Hood, helped research and draft last year’s broadband legislation. “As it is today, wireless is still too costly, data is often capped and it doesn’t have the reliability businesses and hospitals need.”
The final figure was $10 million and Republican legislators throughout Greater Minnesota jumped on the broadband wagon. News of the federal funding allowed Republican lawmakers to point to it and appear to be broadband's BFF, even though CAF2 is more of a beard than a real date. Henjum outed that detail in a December 3 tweet:
Keep hearing that fed broadband $$ is sufficient? It funds service that's *less than 1/2* of the speed defined as broadband by FCC (!)
Two additional examples of GOP broadbandwagon "fraud" from Bluestem's senate district stand out. DFL front group Alliance for a Better Minnesota rips MN17B freshman Dave Baker in Too Little, Too Late for Broadband Funding:
Luckily, Governor Dayton and the DFL-controlled Senate ended up standing up for Greater Minnesota and pushing for broadband funding last session. But due to the resistance to compromise from the GOP House, including Rep. Baker, only about $10 million was passed.
Meanwhile, Rep. Baker’s Kandiyohi County has some of the worst internet access in the state, with only 14% coverage.
Sure, it’s nice that Rep. Baker is finally talking about broadband, but he already made the choice to put ultra-rich property owners ahead of his own neighbors and local businesses having broadband internet access.
Oh snap! Bluestem finds that Baker's new faith in broadband funding pales beside the miracle of state representative Tim Miller's born-again belief in public funding for rural broadband. As we've pointed out for months, the Prinsburg Republican never promised to support broadband in order to get elected.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie's original reporting and analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
Having taken the lede in City Pages' article, Meet the Minnesota Legislature's Top 5 Climate Change Deniers, but not actually having made the top five list of carbon-captured Minnesota House members, insurance salesman and state representative Glenn Gruenhagen, R-Glencoe, doubled down today.
In a press release sent to his general email list Wednesday, Gruenhagen states:
If you listen to our friends on the left, they may have lead you to believe that wind and solar energy are viable energy sources to provide the base-load power needed to power homes and businesses throughout the world. I wanted to share with you a video that explains why that's just not realistic at this point in time with current wind and solar technologies. Wind and solar simply can't produce enough energy to power our state efficiently, and a dramatic shift toward wind and solar with current technology would mean a more expensive and less reliable energy grid.
Last session, Republicans pushed for policies that would make energy cleaner and more importantly cheaper. Thanks to advancements in technology, energy sources like natural gas provide a less expensive way to fuel vehicles and keep the lights on in our homes. We continue to make advancements in hydro and biofuels. Why would we jump to wind and solar, resulting in skyrocketing energy bills for families who can least afford it, rather than choosing nuclear, natural gas, hydro, and clean coal? These energy sources would continue our efforts to reduce pollution while still protecting the wallets of families.
I hope you'll watch the video and let me know your thoughts.
That link leads to a PragerU YouTube featuring the Center For Industrial Progress head and fossil fuel darling Alex Epstein as totally reliable proof that dirty hippies touting clean energy only want to oppress poor energy consumers.
What Gruenhagen doesn't provide is any context. He does want to know what people think, however, so we'll take him up on that.
What is Prager University--and who funds its pro-fossil-fuel curriculum?
For more than 30 years, Dennis Prager has been a conservative radio host and author. His broadcasts air three hours a day, five days a week across the country, beating the conservative drums against what he sees as a host of “liberal” evils—marriage equality, feminism, and multiculturalism. He has called campus rape culture a “gargantuan lie to get votes” promoted by the “feminist left.”
More recently, Prager has developed an ingenious method of getting his conservative opinions to a new kind of audience, one harder to reach via traditional media channels.
Starting in 2011, Prager founded Prager University, an online resource that produces short videos on Prager’s favorite extremist tropes. . . .
. . .Prager University is noteworthy in two respects: the program seeks to insert right-wing religious and political propaganda into schools by providing content directly to teachers and students; and it has the generous backing of two of the richest men in the United States.
. . .Prager University’s largest donors, Dan and Farris Wilks, have spent the last few years using the fortune they made from the fracking boom to fund extreme right-wing causes.
The brothers sold off their Frac Tech shares a few years ago, but they still manage Interstate Explorations, an oil and gas field services company based out of Texas. The two are reportedly worth an estimated $1.4 billion apiece. . . .
In a move that should make Prager’s fracking donors happy, the site recently launched a fundraising campaign to support a five-part video series “investigating the truth behind climate change hysteria.” The series, according to the site, will attempt to “end the debate between science and sensationalism” in regards to global warming. Another video filed under “political science” is entitled, Why You Should Love Fossil Fuel.[link added]
The star of that YouTube linked in the press release? Alex Epstein, the fossil fuel flack in the newer video that Gruenhagen shared with the press and the masses.
Who is Alex Epstein?
DeSmog Blog--motto: Clearing the PR Pollution That Clouds Climate Science--lays out 2002 Duke philosophy major's profile and documents much of his activity in its Alex Epstein profile:
Background
Alex Epstein is the director of the Center for Industrial Progress, a for-profit think tank he founded in 2011. Its mission is to “inspire Americans to embrace industrial progress as a cultural ideal.” He is also a blogger at Master Resource, a “Free Market Energy Blog,” and a past fellow of the Ayn Rand Institute, an organization that has received funding from the Koch Foundations including at least $50,000 between 2005 and 2010. [3]
“As the Founder and the Director of the Center for Industrial Progress, I make it my job to educate the public about the incredibly positive role energy and industry, particularly the oil industry, play in their lives,” Epstein wrote. [4]
Epstein's focus is on energy and industrial policy, and he has written articles in this area in the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Investor’s Business Daily, The Objective Standard and numerous other publications. Epstein hosts a monthly podcast titled “Power Hour” that features “leading energy thinkers” including climate change skeptics like Richard Lindzen.
He maintains a website, alexepstein.com, where he advertises his range of consulting services “from PR consulting to editorial consulting,” in which he reframes the debate to fit the view that aggressive industrial progress will always benefit the environment.
According to his website, Alex Epstein has done corporate speaking and consulting for the oil, gas, and coal industries. [5]
Stance on Climate Change
“In my opinion, the time for debate is certainly not over because the vast majority of us don't even know what the debate is about — let alone what has been proven and what hasn't, let alone what action implications all of this has.” [6]
Readers--and perhaps those journalists that Gruenhagen (and the communications staff in Daudt's caucus) are trying to woe into pro-fossil fuel copy.
The CIP's mission is to “inspire Americans to embrace industrial progress as a cultural ideal.” CIP summarizes their philosophy on their website: [1]
“At the Center for Industrial Progress (CIP), we celebrate man’s impact on nature, just as our ancestors celebrated Americans' ability to 'tame a continent.' We celebrate the never-ending project of the industrial revolution: to harness more and more energy to feed machines that do more and more work to make our lives better and better.”
“… As for pollution, so long as we embrace policies that protect property rights, including air and water rights, we protect industrial development and protect individuals from pollution. By contrast, 'green' policies do not improve the human environment, but sacrifice it to the non-human–just ask anyone trying to build an industrial project today.”
The CIP regularly publishes articles “debunking” environmentalism, and promoting the oil and coal industries, as well as some of their common talking points. For example, Alex Epstein has said that “we should think of coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear, as clean energy.” [2]
Stance on Climate Change
“The movement to convince the public of catastrophic global warming is fundamentally unscientific. Its leaders do not, as true scientists would, objectively study and relay the full evidence about what drives the climate, they fixate obsessively on CO2. They do not share how poorly understood climate drivers are; they act as if they can predict the climate with certainty. Through manipulation of government agencies, a credulous media, and many of their cloistered colleagues in academia, they have managed to take over much of the field of climatology and the vast majority of its public relations.” [3]
Funding
According to an archived version of their website, the CIP is not a 501c-3 organization, because “with 501c-3 status comes an enormous amount of government invasiveness, including limitations on involvement in policy debates we want to participate in.”* (emphasis added). They no longer share this information on their donations page.
CIP also contendes that “we and our supporters are best-served by a model in which we maintain the flexibility, agility, and lack of red tape to make maximum use of donors' gifts.”* [4]
*The Center for Industrial Progress has since removed their website from the Internet Archive.
Those on the City Pages' list should fret that they could lose their status if Glenn keeps it up. As the screenshot below indicates, a place on the list is a source of pride for members of Speaker Daudt's caucus. On Facebook, Minnesota state representative Eric Lucero, R-Dayton, shared the City Pages article under this headnote:
Proud to take the #2 spot on the top five list and be in good company with great colleague legislators!!!
TRUTH
• The LEFT despises the free market and strives to limit choice by placing government control over the lives of individuals.
• The crisis mongering LEFT promotes the idea of human induced Global Climate Change (formerly known as Global Warming in the 1990s (formerly known as Global Cooling in the 1970s)) because manufactured fear serves as the vehicle the LEFT utilizes to achieve their killing two birds with one stone...bankrupt the free market and continue expanding the class of those dependent upon the government.
• Those on the RIGHT such as myself and my great colleagues marked on their top 5 list strive to empower people with self-sufficiency and critical thinking (otherwise known as individual liberty) for each to make their own decisions to achieve the best outcome for the lives of themselves and their family.
• Those on the RIGHT understand a voluntary system of free exchange and risk/reward Capitalism is the only economic system to maintain freedom.
In a comment on the post, Southwest Metro Tea Party Patriots founder and Chanhassen Republican state representative Cindy Pugh, congratulated her majority caucus peers on getting on the list while lamenting her own absence:
To be honest, the Strib-owned former alt-weekly didn't explore fossil fuel fans and climate change deniers in the Minnesota Senate. It's a pity, because the list might have illustrate that while House Republicans might have something of an exclusive franchise on climate change denial and fossil fuel affection, this guy doesn't seem to be bringing those questions up for a vote in the state's upper chamber.
Finally, Bluestem thinks that a scorecard tallying a number votes would be a better index of lignite love and climate change denial than the anecdotes assembled by the City Pages.
Photo: Glenn Gruenhagen, R-Glencoe, the lede-er of the pack.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
A developer seeking billions for a proposed high-speed rail line between Rochester and the Twin Cities has federal approval to launch Liberty Minnesota Regional Center, an EB-5 immigrant investment center.
North American High Speed Rail group has been quietly negotiating with the Minnesota Department of Transportation to conduct a feasibility study and for exclusive rights to build an elevated line along the 84 mile Highway 52 corridor.
The Minnesota-based group plans to raise much of the estimated $4.2 billion — in private capital from foreign individuals and governments, including China — to finance the rail project. The EB-5 program provides permanent green cards to foreign investors who invest $500,000 to $1 million in businesses or economic development projects that create or preserve at least 10 jobs for U.S. workers.
We learned of the suspended site from tip emailed by a reader:
I went to the MN Dept. of Employment & Economic Development (DEED) website and found three (3) EB-5 regional centers that either have been approved or have approval pending at the USCIS website.
Bluestem checked that statement out and located EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program, the page on DEED's website where the information is posted:
The Immigrant Investor Pilot Program was created by Section 610 of Public Law 102-395 (Oct. 6, 1992), and has been extended. EB-5 requirements for an investor under the Pilot Program are essentially the same as in the standard EB-5 investor program, except the Pilot Program provides for investments that are affiliated with an economic unit known as a “Regional Center.”
Investments made through regional centers can take advantage of a more expansive concept of job creation including both “indirect” and “direct” jobs. A Regional Center is defined as any economic entity, public or private, which is involved with the promotion of economic growth, improved regional productivity, job creation and increased domestic capital investment.
The organizers of a regional center seeking the “Regional Center” designation from USCIS can find more detailed information on the process and requirements at the USCIS website. The following Regional Centers have been approved or have approval pending by the USCIS to facilitate investment in Minnesota (Disclaimer: The listing of these organizations does not imply endorsement):
When we click on the link, we had the same experience as the source. Here's a screenshot of what she sent us:
What does this mean? We're uncertain. Domain Tools yielded this information (in part) for the URL:
When we google Empyrean West, we find a website for another EB-5 service, Empyrean West. According to its website's About Us page:
We established Empyrean West to answer the demand for commercial project financing in the US. Empyrean West is working with multiple EB-5 projects, establishing our first tri-state Liberty West Regional Center encompassing Southern California, Arizona, and Southern Nevada. We have also launched other Regional Centers across the U.S., details of these centers can be found at (www.LibertyRegionalCenters.com).
What does this mean? That the site is suspended while it's under construction? There are other possibilities (such as non-payment) but we just don't know.
Image: A friend suggested that this snowpiercing high-speed train might be a great illustration for the hypothetical NAHSRG shortline between the Twin Cities and Rochester. Just teasing, we hope.
We're conducting our November fundraising drive. If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie's original reporting and analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
Bluestem is continuing to search for evidence to back up the claim asserted to the Rochester Post Bulletin by a spokester for the North American High Speed Rail Group that it is " negotiating with the owners of the XpressWest proposal for the chance to build and operate the corridor."
In the page below, we embed a pdf of the presentation XpressWest made to the Nevada High-Speed Rail Authority on the day it was awarded the franchise, and the XpressWest application for the project is found here on the nvhsra.com website.
In a brief phone interview, rail authority contact person David Clyde said that the XpressWest presentations did not include mention of the North American High Speed Rail Group, but said that questions of this nature are best addressed to XpressWest or its parent company, the Marnell Companies.
In other news, our data practices request to the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) for the business plan for the metro-to-Rochester line has been approved and we eagerly await the arrival of the disk from MNDOT.
The company purports to be able to build a private HSR line between Rochester and the Twin Cities without public funds, but Citizens Concerned About Rail Lane (CCARL), groups like the Minnesota Farmers Union and local governments in between the stops have reservations about the project.
For news about a recent CCARLS meeting, check out the Cannon Falls Beacon article, CCARL meeting draws big crowd. The next CCARLS meeting will be at 6 p.m. on Thursday, December 3 at the Cannon Falls High School auditorium.
Image: A friend suggested that this snowpiercing high-speed train might be a great illustration for the hypothetical NAHSRG shortline between the Twin Cities and Rochester. Just teasing, we hope.
We're conducting our November fundraising drive. If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie's original reporting and analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
While Minnesota opponents of the EPA's Clean Power Plan moan about potential increases in the price of energy (while never uttering the phrase "climate change"), some of them were not the least reluctant to support legislation that will raise electrical rates for residential consumers in favor of energy-intensive industries.
Residential customers of Minnesota Power would pay more for electricity each month to help taconite plants and paper mills survive an onslaught of global competition under a plan to be filed today with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission.
The rate re-jiggering, authorized by the 2015 Minnesota Legislature, would see the average Minnesota Power customer's household electric bill go up 14.5 percent, or about $11.45 per month.
An average homeowner, who uses about 750 kilowatts of electricity, would see their monthly Minnesota Power bill go from about $79 per month to $90.45.
Other customers — most businesses, government agencies, schools, etc. — would see their rates go up by a flat fee of $11.45 per meter, per month, an increase of between 1 and 4 percent. . . .
It's not a done deal, and even the sponsor of the legislation is having second thoughts:
Investor-owned Minnesota Power has a clear stake in the future of mining in the region. Mining companies alone account for more than 47 percent of Minnesota Power's revenue. Add in paper mills, and heavy industry accounts for nearly 60 percent of the utility's customer load, far different from most utilities, such as Minneapolis-based Xcel, which are tilted toward residential customers.
That makes it critical for Minnesota Power's financial health to retain its largest customers. If one or more of those large customers close permanently, Minnesota Power probably would file a rate proposal that would cause homeowner rates to go up much higher, Mullen noted.
But state Rep. Tom Anzelc, DFL-Balsam Township, who sponsored the legislation calling for the rate shift, said he's now having second thoughts. Anzelc said he's not sure the time is right for such a major shift in pricing for electricity.
"What they (Minnesota Power) are proposing to the PUC is not what they are going to get. It's too much" for homeowners, Anzelc said.
During the spring legislative session "it seemed like the right policy. But the timing now is not good," Anzelc said. "I have to see what people think. The PUC is going to have to decide if $11.45 is too much for people on fixed incomes; whether it's worth it for a 5 percent cut for taconite plants. I'm not sure right now."
Buddy Robinson, director of the Minnesota Citizens Federation, Northeast, said the formula used to make the claim that industry has been subsidizing homeowner rates is flawed.
"This isn't the first time the taconite industry has tried to do this and we've challenged it every time," Robinson said. "There are ways to figure the true cost (of electricity) that show there is in fact no subsidy going on." . . .
Here's the Minnesota Power press release. Note that qualified low-income customers won't have their rates increased. We have to wonder why--if those who claim to worry about the cost of the Clean Power Plan to the poor--aren't willing to give them a break on the rates to soften the blow to help save the planet.
Or does that only work when helping out industries that can't compete against cut-throat global capitalism?
We're conducting our November fundraising drive. If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie's original reporting and analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
It is a fact universally acknowledged that during the 2015 session, the Minnesota House Republicans attempted to defund the Border-to-Border Development Grant Program, while eliminating the Office of Broadband Development.
Fortunately, DFLers got the contrarian caucus to say uncle and some money squeaked through, though nothing close to the pressing need businesses and residents had hoped for.
In the latest issue of the St. Peter Herald, state representative Clark Johnson, DFL-North Mankato, reflects in Connect Minnesota:
Broadband across all of Minnesota would be a long-term investment that would make our businesses and farmers competitive with those who have the access. These enterprises would have the ability to download data-rich information that can help them fine tune their operations and create partners for trade in markets across the globe.
During the 2014 legislative session, I voted for $20 million in broadband grants for underserved areas. Some of that has been invested in south central Minnesota. When Governor Dayton proposed an additional $30 million in broadband grants in his state budget earlier this year, it appeared likely that we would further expand broadband to Greater Minnesota.
With a projected $2 billion state budget surplus last year, there was plenty of room for a significant investment in Greater Minnesota broadband. Unfortunately, the House Republicans initially opposed any type of funding for broadband development grants. It was only after weeks of pressure from Greater Minnesota that they began to consider supporting funding for broadband.
After long negotiations with Governor Dayton, and a special session, the final budget bill only included $10.6 million, about half of what we invested in 2014. A budget surplus is not a time to retreat from investing in critical infrastructure critical to the future of Greater Minnesota.
Now is the time for one-time investments like broadband funding. We currently have a stable budget and more than a $1 billion budget surplus. . . .
While people in Greater Minnesota are patient, let's hope the legislature can deliver faster than the pokey Internet upon which far too many of us rely.
Photo: In many places in rural Minnesota, broadband is not outstanding in its field.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
New York's attorney general has joined a coalition of 24 states, cities and counties seeking to intervene in court to help defend a federal plan to require power plants cut their greenhouse gas emissions.
The group is filing a motion to intervene at the U.S. Court of Appeals defending the Environmental Protection Agency's plan that has been challenged by several states and power industry groups.
Attorney General Eric Schneiderman says the plan is needed to respond to the threat of climate change and incorporates strategies New York and several other states have used to cut pollution.
The coalition includes attorneys general from California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington. [end update]
In Tuesday's Caledonia Argus, we find a press release from state House Majority Whip Roseau Republican Dan Fabian's office reprinted on the southeastern Minnesota newspaper's op-ed page.
On Thursday, October 29, 2015, Representative Dan Fabian (R-Roseau) sent a letter to Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson asking her to add Minnesota to a coalition of 25 states who have filed suit in the last week against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over President Obama’s Clean Power Plan.
A previous letter was sent to the Attorney General’s office in late September, signed by Rep. Fabian and 43 other state representatives, which requested Attorney General Swanson take action against this overreaching federal rule. Her office responded that this could not be done until the rule was published in the Federal Register, which it was on October 23, 2015.
“This expensive and burdensome new rule, which the EPA has conceded will have no measurable environmental benefit, greatly expands federal authority over state energy policy and will impact the availability of affordable energy for folks across the state,” said Rep. Fabian. “Twenty-five states have already filed suit which demonstrates just how overreaching and devastating President Obama’s Clean Power Plan is. This is a bipartisan issue that has people across the nation concerned, and that’s why now is the time for Minnesota to lead and stand up for the people of our state.”
The letter follows, with the usual crocodile tears for the poor:
Dear Attorney General Swanson,
On September 29, 2015, your office responded to a letter sent by myself and forty-three other state representatives asking the Attorney General to add Minnesota to the growing coalition of states challenging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in a federal court regarding President Obama’s Clean Power Plan, issued under the agency’s 111(d) rulemaking authority. You indicated that your office would consult with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) regarding the rule, as well as wait for it to be published by the Federal Register.
This overreaching new rule is now in effect, having been published in the Federal Register on October 23, 2015. Furthermore, you have had ample time to consult with the MPCA in regards to the effects these new federal guidelines will have on our state. That is why I would like to once again ask you to challenge this rule in a federal court on behalf of the state of Minnesota.
As I stated before, not only will this significantly expanded scope of federal power under EPA rulemaking undermine state regulatory authority, but it will also impact the availability of affordable energy for families, businesses and communities statewide. Additionally, there is a possibility that its implementation could lead to the closure of coal-fired power plants in our state, creating significant job loss and increased energy costs. These price increases will most greatly affect those who can least afford it including people with low or fixed incomes, the elderly, local schools and nursing homes.
Furthermore, the EPA conceded there will be no measurable environmental benefit which calls to question the validity of implementing these expensive, overreaching new federal requirements when there is little expected positive environmental results.
Twenty-five states have already filed suit against the Clean Power Plan in the last week, and by joining as a plaintiff, Minnesota will be a strong voice for state regulatory authority, protect Minnesota jobs and energy reliability, and hopefully help stop the alarming expansion of federal power over state energy policy.
I appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to your response.
We've added the bold emphasis to the text about closing coal plants, since that's the special interest that leading the Republican lamentation on the Clean Energy Plan (and Xcel's response or the MPCA's stakeholders' discussions).
Climate change: the threat that dare not speak its name
The Roseau Republican can't even bring himself to use the phrases "climate change" or "global warming." Not surprising for a guy whose caucus said, 'What climate change?', as Star Tribune columnist Jon Tevlin wrote:
On the front page of Tuesday’s newspaper, a headline read: “As summers get hotter, humans get more blame.” This idea is being accepted as fact by most scientists around the world, by businesses and by government agencies such as NASA and the Department of Defense.
Even the pope seems to be down with it.
But apparently climate change is still not accepted in the Minnesota House.
The issue came up during the omnibus job growth and energy affordability finance bill discussion on the House floor last week. It was one of those debates that make you slap your forehead — and wonder how some of our elected representatives even found their way in to work that day. . . .
For your morning face palm, read the moments from the debate caught Tevlin's attention.
They don't believe in it, and they're not going to mention its name, if Fabian's prose is an example of the spin.
Silence is golden, or a least a strategy against public opinion
An article published yesterday by US News and World's energy, environment and STEM reporter Alan Neuhauser may underscore Fabian's need to obscure--as in not mention whatsoever--the issue.
When it comes to the Clean Power Plan, most voters don't want their day in court.
Across the 26 states suing to stop the landmark rule – the first ever to limit carbon emissions from existing power plants – an average 61 percent of adults say they support the policy, according to an analysis released Monday by the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication.
In only three of those states do most voters oppose the Clean Power Plan: West Virginia and Wyoming, the nation's top two coal producers, as well as North Dakota, which has seen a boom in unconventional oil and natural gas production, commonly referred to as "fracking.". . .
On October 23rd, President Obama’s signature climate change program The Clean Power Plan was entered into the Federal Register. Almost immediately, 26 US states sued to stop the policy, which sets strict limits on coal-fired power plants. However, according to our model of state-level public opinion (Yale Climate Opinion Maps, 2014), a majority of the public in 23 out of the 26 states filing suits actually support setting strict limits on coal-fired power plants. Across all 26 suing states, 61% of the public supports the policy, ranging from 73% public support in New Jersey to 43% in Wyoming and West Virginia. Across all 26 suing states, only 38% of the public on average opposes the policy. . . .
America’s history of controversy over climate change and the legal and political challenges to the Clean Power Plan might suggest that the nation is divided over regulating carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants. Our research finds the opposite: a large majority of Americans overall support the approach. Our models find that a majority of Americans in almost every state support setting strict emission limits on coal-fired power plants. . . .
The analysis was released after Fabian sent his missive to Attorney General Swanson, but we can be forgiven in thinking that the Majority Caucus communications and political staff likely has access to its own focus group data that helps in framing this as so not being about climate change but helping those poor folks and middle class Minnesotans to whom the Republican Party is dedicated 24/7/365.
When people know the issue is taking on climate change, they support tighter standards on power plants. Solution? Don't talk about climate change.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
While the North American High Speed Rail Group (NAHSRG) is not among the initial four applicants for the franchise to building a high speed train between Southern California and Las Vegas, it may have a second chance on putting in a bid.
The Nevada High Speed Rail Authority (NHSRA) has extended the deadline for applications to November 4, so perhaps there's still time to make the mayor of Rochester nervous.
In an email to Bluestem Prairie to response to a request for information about the bids that were due Monday, NHSRA representative Sue Christiansen wrote:
I am following up with you on David’s behalf to provide an update on this afternoon’s meeting. To date, we have received four applications from Dave Brough, Nevada Intercity Passenger Railroad Co., SkyTram International and XpressWest. The authority also extended the deadline for applications to 5 p.m. on November 4.
Should the Minnesota-based group get it together by the second-chance deadline, the current shortlist and any other late-comers will be the competition.
After reading up on high speed rail developments in the United States, Bluestem remains puzzled about the allure of the North American High Speed Rail Group to Minnesotans, since the grand claims made here about the group's projects in other places don't seem to be matched in those other places' media reports.
Photo: A concept from the North American High Speed Rail Group's website.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
This week the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development announced $461,000 in three new grants from the Job Creation Fund that will lead to 45 new jobs and business investments totaling $12.1 million.
One grant, to Anderson-Crane Co. totaling $120,821, will lead to its investment of $1.24 million in a new facility, creating 12 new, full-time jobs paying between $13 and $20 an hour.
While this is great news for the people of Litchfield, if Rep. Dean Urdahl, R-Grove City, had his way, this grant would never have happened. He fought the creation of this fund by voting against it two years ago. And again this year he voted to cut the funding for it by 25 percent. Why wouldn’t he want to expand businesses and create well-paying jobs here in Minnesota? . . .
The Meeker County Board of Commissioners has approved of a resolution of support for Anderson Crane as it applies for the Job Creation Fund Program. The state program provides incentives for businesses to expand.
Meeker County Economic Development Director David Krueger says Anderson Crane plans to double the size of its facility in Darwin Township – just east of Litchfield – with a 1-point-3 million dollar project. . . .
Are good jobs with decent pay for Greater Minnesotans what the Republicans are scorning when they kvetch about "metro-centric" thinking?
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
If all a person had to go on with regard to concern for the environment and climate action were Minnesota House Speaker Kurt Daudt's declaration that the "real" divide in Minnesota is between metro environmentalists and the rest of the state--and Becker Republican state representative Jim Newberger's bleating about coal-fired power plants, we'd think that only dirty hippies in Powderhorn Park care about the planet.
But since we live in rural Minnesota, we know better. Thus, it's not a surprise to find a letter like that of Chuck Derry, of Clearwater, Minnesota, in the Sherburne County Citizen.
I read the article in last week’s edition of the Citizen regarding the recent announcement by Xcel to retire Sherco 1 & 2. It is disappointing to see, that even after Xcel has put forth their preferred plan for the plant, our local representative is still trying to scare people with how devastating this will be.
Xcel’s plan will retire the two oldest and dirtiest units at Sherco by 2023 and 2026, a timeline that is aggressive but reasonable considering the long term decisions that will need to be made in coming years when it comes to providing baseload power. Sherco is the top polluter of particulate matter that exacerbates asthma, other respiratory illnesses and heart disease. According to the Clean Air Task Force, Sherco contributes to 92 deaths, 1,600 asthma attacks, and 150 heart attacks each year. Sherco is also the single, largest source of carbon pollution that contributes to changes in Minnesota’s four seasons, our climate, and our health. According to the Minnesota Department of Health, changes to our climate are increasing heat-related illnesses, allergies, and the spread of tick-borne illnesses, like Lyme’s Disease. If that isn’t enough, Sherco is one of the most significant sources of mercury pollution in our state, contaminating our water ways, and resulting in health advisories against eating fresh caught fish.
Xcel’s plan will reduce carbon emissions by 60% and help protect jobs during that time, helping to ease retirement transition for those that are eligible and will allow for those that aren't at retirement age to maintain their positions either at the plant itself or within Xcel. The plan also includes 50MW of solar on site at the plant, which will help add money into the tax base of Becker that Xcel was supporting, diversifying the taxable income is a smart idea. Putting all of our eggs in one basket is not.
We also know that the plan includes 3,500 MW of clean energy like solar and wind (1,200 MW by 2020) which will help to create thousands of new jobs in central MN. And finally Xcel has said that the assets at the plant (boilers, including Sherco 1 & 2) were beginning to depreciate, meaning their value was lessening, which meant Xcel would be paying less in taxes as their local assets got older. This is planning for the future, something that we should have started doing long ago.
I encourage readers to let local leaders know they should stop playing politics with people’s lives and get on board with Xcel’s plan. Xcel should be applauded for the thought it put into its plan to maintain jobs, increase the tax base, at the same time it invests in clean energy. Our lives and the lives of our children depend on this. This is a win-win.
Who knew?
Photo: Sherco.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
UPDATE 10/12/2015: In an email, Lars Negstad, an organizer for ISAIAH MN, confirms that the paper didn't contact the organization for the story. ISAIAH-MN conducted a prayer vigil at the state office building before last month's Prison Population Taskforce informal meeting, and the group is a leader in the coalition seeking criminal justice reform over profiting on a glut of inmates. [end update]
One never knows what editors leave on the news room floor, but based on the copy in a report about re-opening the CCA prison in Appleton, Bluestem finds the usually excellent West Central Tribune reporter Tom Cherveny coming up short.
Economic tipping point triggers prison campaign does a good job of presenting the point of view of those scheming to re-open the Prairie Correctional Facility in Appleton. Unfortunately, it also allows those folks to frame and answer the objections that those opposed to the project have raised.
We doubt that religious leaders at ISAIAH or union officials--or those they represent authorized Goff Public or its clients to speak for them.
Ever since, a task force from Swift County and the city of Appleton along with Sen. Lyle Koenen, DFL-Clara City and Rep. Tim Miller, R-Prinsburg, have been working to convince the state: Leasing the Prairie Correctional Facility in Appleton is the answer to the state’s needs. . . .
The task force members also believe that state staffing resolves the concerns of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the bargaining unit for state employees. AFSCME wants to maintain union workers in the state corrections system.
One would think that a call to AFSCME Council 5--rather than the opinion of the local task force--would be a more reliable source on the union's concerns. Jennifer Munt is the union's Director of Public Affairs & Public Policy. She, not those pushing the facility in Appleton, is authorized to speak for the union's concerns.
And there's this:
Adding to the challenge for making the cause on behalf of the Appleton facility are calls by legislators and organizations in the state for prison reform. Those calling for reforms want the state to reduce its prison population, the two legislators said. . . .
Fidler said the Department of Corrections is confident that the county jails are meeting all that is asked of them. He also pointed out, however, that no one is making the case that county jails can provide the long-term services needed by many of these inmates.
Leasing the Appleton facility could allow the state to provide the programming and save it the expense of building new cells. Miller and Koenen both noted that building new prison cells would take up a large share of any state bonding measure. It would also obligate the state to maintain prison cells for another 50 to 100 years that might not be needed if prison reforms are achieved.
If the state leases prison cells, it can always end the relationship when the need for the cells no longer exists, Fidler said.
“A home run for everybody,’’ he said of a possible lease agreement.
Again, one would think that those raising these concern would be best to speak to them, rather than those who are pushing revive a local economy by re-opening a shuttered prison.
Indeed, Cherveny closes the article by marshalling numbers assembled "a few years ago" by the Upper Minnesota Valley Regional Development Commission and the city of Appleton assembled that looked at the economic impact of the prison and its closing.
No one on the local re-opening task force--and certainly not the two legislators on it--would benefit from the "home run" for the "prison reform."
Those advocating reform call it criminal justice reform--a discussion that addresses sentencing, alternative courts such as drug courts, mental health services and substance abuse treatment, among other things. All of these issues came up at the state Prison Population TaskForce meeting, while Saturday's article suggests that re-opening the Appleton Prison was one of the centerpiece proposals of that first meeting.
Let's see Miller and Koenen introduce or support measures for criminal justice reform, push them through, insist on them as a condition for the lease--making it temporary, if it is indeed the most cost effective option for beds in a time of reform.
Otherwise, this simply looks like what the Appleton prison has always been--an attempt first by the city, then by CCA, to cash in on projected inmate gluts. Those who seek to base a region's economic development on this have only a disincentive to move criminal justice reform, whatever lip service to it their lobbyists tell them to spin in the media and St. Paul.
Photo: The shuttered prison at Appleton.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
All of the statements, opinions, and views expressed on this site by Sally Jo Sorensen are solely her own, save when she attributes them to other sources.
The opinions, statements, and views of contributing writers are their own.
Sorensen, editor and proprietor of Bluestem Prairie, serves clients in the business and nonprofit sectors. While progressive in outlook, she does not caucus with any political party.
.jpg){kind=link}
Recent Comments